Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingofmann (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 13 January 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Please edit the main page of the noticeboard.

    Individual articles

    Heather Mills McCartney (closed)

    St. Mary's High School (St. Louis, Missouri) (closed)

    Martha Stewart - is stating that she's a convicted felon anti-BLP?

    User:Jkp212 has removed a large majority of the info on Martha Stewart's felony conviction and jail time, stating that it's a BLP concern, especially concerning "weight." It looks like a whitewash job to me, so I put the info back in. It could be better referenced, but there is a reliable source, and a whole nuther article on the legal matter with lots of references (he removed the link). There is no question that she was convicted and went to jail. Note she was not convicted of insider trading. A third party might want to look into this. Smallbones (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the current form of the article might teeter on the edge of a WP:WEIGHT violation, but a much greater concern is that material damaging to a living person seems to be largely unreferenced. I would endorse User:Jkp212's actions until the section is much more thoroughly-sourced than it is now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there is almost as much information in the lead as there is in the section about her conviction. That appears place considerable weight placed on her conviction due to the size of the entry in the lead. Also, most of the statements in the insider trading section are unsourced at this time. Jons63 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is definitely undue weight given in the lead, the main section on it looks ok as far as weight in concerned. It needs to be thoroughly referenced, though. --Tango (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added appropriate template. It needs considerable paring down in the lead, and references needs to be added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We should not include unreferenced material of this nature. Is this material really that relevant to a LONG TERM article? Maybe a brief mention, in my opinion. Just because the charges got a lot of media attention doesn't mean that they are particularly relevant to her life. I believe it is a pretty meaningless incident (big picture) in her life. Do others agree? I certainly don't feel it's appropriate to mention in the lead.. Further, as user smallbones points out, "insider trading charges" is misnamed, b/c she was not charged with insider trading... Let's work out this type of info on the talk page, and not "experiment" with negative material within the article.--Jkp212 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit I haven't really looked at the article lately but this incident was quite huge and arguably was a major touchstone in her and Omnimedia's development with hundreds of people losing jobs and her comeback path due to the possibly overblown media attention netting her two TV series and relaunching all of her brands. Calling her simply a convicted felon doesn't seem right but neither does watering down the significance of the events and related outcomes. Benjiboi 02:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can agree that we need to balance things to avoid undue emphasis; but being a convicted felon is a life-defining fact nowadays, even for a rich white woman. I do detect a desire to whitewash her criminal conviction. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, just looked it over and wikipedia looks foolish now. This was a huge event and one of the reasons her name is known to many worldwide. Something certainly should be in the lede and she jokes about her jail time regularly so a non-watered-down section about the jail time, trial and media attention is quite appropriate. Benjiboi 02:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly agree that this should be in there - and not just as a sentence or two, but likely with its own section and a mention in the lead. My concern is that the material that User:Smallbones restored is largely unreferenced; it should stay out until it's referenced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the material needs to be sourced and in line with the rest of the article but there is no BLP issue with saying that MS is a convicted criminal - she is, that's not "negative" material - that's a statement of fact which be sourced with 100s of A+ reference sources. Her being banged up is a notable event in her life and I'd agree is worthy of it's own section. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The material in the Martha Stewart article seems balanced to me but I have a strong objection to a Martha_Stewart_stock_trading_case article [[15]]. This is surely "undue weight".Momento (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP policy says "cover the event, not the person", and WP:WEIGHT applies only within a single article, not across articles. I agree this content is relevant to a long-term assessment of Martha Stuart and removing it entirely could be considered a "white-wash". a small, well-referenced section in the Martha Stewart article with a link to Martha Stewart stock trading case seems a reasonable approach to implementing WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Renaming and broadening the "Martha Stewart case" article seems to be getting acceptance as a way of resolving Momento's objection. It would be a good idea even if he hadn't objected, actually.--Samiharris (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jazmin Grace Grimaldi

    This person is a daughter of the Prince Albert of Monaco. She was born as a result of a union between the Prince and a woman not married to him. There are sources in the article which seem to document these facts. Nevertheless, an editor has strenuously objected to the use of terms and phrases such as 'born out of wedlock" and "illegitimate." The birth status is apparently important because of laws of royal succession in Monaco. I removed the offending material until it was sourced.It has now been sourced and replaced.

    For those with OTRS permissions, a note was received at Ticket #2007122110002539.

    Another set of eyes would be useful. We are likely moving to DR but I'd like to have any BLP issues cleared before then. Thanks -JodyB talk 12:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed a lot of unreferenced stuff and POV editorialising. The girl is only 14, so whilst notable we need extreme care. I invite some sensitive editors to review and watchlist.--Docg 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Monaco's pattern of dynasticizing bastards is history, not POV. But there are 3 real BLP problems:
    1. Jazmin's "trustee" objects to any explicit reference in the article to the girl's illegitimacy, yet this is directly relevant to her Notability and is mentioned in virtually all media references to her because Albert II of Monaco has no legitimate children. He does, however, have 2 acknowledged illegitimate children. If Jazmin became legitimate, she would automatically become first in line to her father's throne, not only displacing Albert's sister Caroline, Princess of Hanover as the official heir, but also inheriting that throne the moment Albert dies. Nonetheless, I erred in describing Jazmin as born "out of wedlock", because it appears that her mother was still legally married to David Shumacher at the time of her birth. The relevant point is that Jazmin's parents were not married to each other when she was conceived or born.
    2. The "trustee" repeatedly inserts language which is either false or Crystal Balling, i.e. that Prince Albert has the authority as "reigning monarch" to legitimize Jazmin, to change the constitution to make her his heir, to make her his heir by marrying her mother, and claims that if Albert "were to recognize her" as legitimate she would become "HSH Princess Jazmin of Monaco". In fact, none of those assertions is true & therefore can't be sourced. Monaco is a constitutional monarchy whose Head of State can no more alter the constitution than in any other Western democracy.
    3. The "trustee" juxtaposes text to suggest that Albert II did not recognize Jazmin as his daughter primarily out of desire to protect her childhood privacy. In fact, her mother's California paternity lawsuit against Albert failed due to Albert's refusal to voluntarily submit to California jurisdiction in the case, and he only acknowldedged paternity following results of DNA testing, which he required. Lethiere (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion is that this girl has really no notability by herself and that there should be an Afd. Hektor (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Felton

    • Greg Felton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article about a controversial journalist had been the subject of editing wars after its recreation in October, including a blanking by the subject of the article. A discussion was able to produce a NPOV stub that remained stable until 21 December when some additions were made including several that violated WP:BLP and WP:OR and were removed. It was previously deleted in July as an attack page and appears bound that way again. It should perhaps be temporarily protected or deleted.

    Interested users:

    // DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having been involved in the past with difficult BLP times with this article in October (see [16] I would like to support DoubleBlue's description of the problem above, as well as his recent actions to clean out OR and material contrary to BLP. However, I still remain concerned about the overall NPOV tone of the article. This despite the fact that the current material is apparently appropriately sourced, and that I strongly disagree with the subject's opinions.--Slp1 (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have semi-protected it for now. Obviously, if additional protection is needed, it can be applied. My reasoning on this is that semi-protection should allow involved editors to work towards consensus on the article while at least preventing libel being introduced by unregistered or newly registered. Registered users who violate BLP can if necessary be addressed through the warning hierarchies ({{uw-biog1}} or {{uw-npov1}}) to the point where appropriate action can be sought, if necessary, at WP:AIV. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. As I think about this article, I wonder if others would like to chime about whether referring this article to Articles for deletion might be appropriate. It is not clear to me that he meets notability guidelines from appropriate third party sources. Yes, he has written a book, but I can't find any independent reviews of it. There are a very few references to him online, apart from his own articles/websites etc. In addition, the article seems to be a magnet for editors who are critical of his views who include original research, non-reliable sources etc etc to push their views. The subject of the article contacted OTRS and requested the deletion of a previous version of the page [17], and the result was it was zapped as an attack page. After it was recreated (by a critic) in October, an IP address associated with Felton blanked the page. [18] The current article seems to be to fall afoul of multiple WP:BLP policies, including too much of the subject's own self-published material given the length of the article, unbalanced etc. Would others suggest that an AFD would be appropriate given the history and current state of the article? Slp1 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too hope for input from other editors. While there are things Felton has written, there are not any, reliable sources about Felton to be found. Besides the Levant opinion piece, which only calls him a "notorious anti-Semite" him in passing, I can only find an article in the UBC's School of Journalism magazine mentioning his being "silenced" at the Courier.[19] I seriously question if he meets WP:Notability (people) and how can a NPOV article be written about him? The sourced statements in the article now claim to represent his views based upon snippets of what he has written, perhaps not incorrectly, but still awfully close to being WP:OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. The article is now at AFD. [20] Slp1 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Debbie Allen (closed)

    Naftali Tzvi Weisz (closed)

    David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)

    David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    This page is constantly being edit by user Heraldic and a few others logging on under IP addresses ignoring WP NPOV and WP BLP, despite having these issues addressed to them on the article's discussion page. Heraldic has now begun posting comments on the discussion page with links to his self-published website.--Lazydown (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Still big problems on this page. Now editors are attmepting to skew NPOV by removing a standard cited source, style and nature used in many BLPs, Ancestry.com. One World Tree, Thomas Stanley II to David Drew Howe, on line database. Provo, Utah. The Generations Network, Inc., retrieved 27, December.--Lazydown (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As a point of reference the Anna Nicole Smith biography page has been rated a class B. It has at least eight citations for Ancestry.com and cited the same standard way that my citation has been made.--Lazydown (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These days the term vanispamcruftisement is deprecated in favour of the less judgmental conflict of interest, but having read the article you mention, I can see that there's a case for resurrecting it. I could stub the article, but even then a neutral effort will portray Howe as at best eccentric and at worst ... well since WP:BLP says that we don't worst, that doesn't matter. If we leave the article alone, Howe's detractors, who are numerous and well-informed, will insist on adding rebuttals to his claims. Leaving the article in a pro-Howe form might be seen as endorsing his claims, and thus his "charitable fund-raising efforts". A coatrack problem either way. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COATRACK regarding WP:BLP seems to be mostly concerned about a bias towards the negative. It asks editors the question what would an unintended reader take away from the article? And, if it skews the article towards the Negative then it has to be brought back to NPOV. This biography is continually being pushed towards a negative bias by a small group of detractors. The general tone and some of the material tends to leave a reader with the impression that the subject of the biography is merely chasing a fantasy. However, the various news sources cited are clearly more balanced than the biography page. If it is to stay, it should have a good revamp towards NPOV because right now it isn't.--Lazydown (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the characterization of a "small group of detractors." There are a few (Theisles and Lazydown) who are obvious supporters. There are others (present company included) who are resisting attempts to un-balance the discussion. Also, it's not important what we think some "unintended reader" would take away from the section. The information is verifiable, comes from reliable sources, and informs the reader. This is a biographical article about Howe, not an advertisement. The Vikesland incident is part of his biography not because we say so, but because HE says so through his actions. Newguy34 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOAP is the above user and his fellow detractors of the article's perspective in promoting a negative bias in this BLP. I stand by my edits in promoting NPOV and following the benchmarks for WP:BLP. The fact remains that any editor that makes an edit for NPOV is accused of being the subject of the article by the above user. Rarely are any Wikipedia Policies discussed in his edits and many are being ignored. I have attempted to resolve these issues with this user but I am continually being dismissed and insulted. Other editors on the talk page of the BLP have noted the negative bias against the subject of the BLP by the above user and others.--Lazydown (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all accurate, Lazydown. Each time one of the other editors cites a source that is less than flattering to Howe, you accuse us of violating NPOV. What we have here is a content dispute. It's not relevant that I discuss Wikipedia's policies in my edits, only important that I live by them, which I have always tried to do. Lastly, you have not tried to resolve this with me, but rather have set about on dual agendas: 1) to cast Howe's claims in the most favorable light, and 2) to accuse the rest of the editors of violating NPOV. I welcome the open discussion on this. Newguy34 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all the editors of the page are violating NPOV and WP:BLP. It really is only a problem with yourself and user Heraldic and what I assume are your IP addresses in a few edits (could be wrong on the IPs though). In any case, the majority of editors are doing a nice job at sticking to WP:BLP and NPOV. On the other hand we have you. Again, I stand by my edits. I've never attempted to add a source that wasn't allowable under WP:BLP. Neither yourself, nor user Heraldic, can say the same. You continue to accuse me and other editors of being the subject of the biography and it is past tedious. I've bumped the issue up to the administrators and they should have some feedback for us in the next 48 hours. Other than that, I have nothing else to add.--Lazydown (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "On the other hand we have you"?? Could this be the civil tone we have cautioned you about? It is curious that you claim to be above all of this, and can't understand why other editors (Heraldic and me) are being such a stickler for the details. You have continually cited WP policies accusing Heraldic and me of violating NPOV for not "sticking to WP:BLP" any time we object to unilateral edits made by you and you alone (without the benefit of discussion), which seek to place Howe's claims in the most favorable light and present claims and unverified information as fact. I, too, have bumped this up to the administrators and look forward to their response to this issue, the public record of which is on several talk pages. Newguy34 (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it possible to get a few more eyes on David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)?--Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Ehrlich

    This article is biased in that it includes too much criticism of Ehrlich and almost no defense of his opinions. He is a prominent scientist who writes about and promotes public understanding of the environment. It seems probable that his entry has been edited by people who want to attack the environmental movement for political reasons.

    Is this the Paul R. Ehrlich article? --15:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by H2g2bob (talk • contribs)

    I added some citations about the impact of population on the environment. However, I can sure use some editing help from others. I may have used up my three edits for the day getting typo's out. Thanks- feed back welcome. Buddydog21 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Obed Mlaba

    Obed Mlaba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The criticism section, which is largely unsourced, occupies more than half of the article. The photograph used does not identify Mr Mlaba, and has an uncertain copyright status (check the image description page). I was able to find a few sources for the criticisms - [21] [22] (IOL appears to be, according to this Stanford resource on South African newspapers, a fairly reputable sources). --Iamunknown 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any chance a BLP regular will look into this article? --Iamunknown 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I've taken a look at it, and removed some of the worst. I've dropped a BLP tag onto it. I've also requested assistance from WikiProject South Africa, as I personally am unfamiliar with the article's subject and would not know where else to look for sourcing. I have no idea what's up with that image. It certainly doesn't seem appropriate in its place. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dovid Jaffe: News of the World and Yedioth Ahronoth RS?

    Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies#Dovid Jaffe. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t21:58z

    • While the "News of the World" may be a tabloid it is part of News Corp along with the WSJ and The Times. I don't think there is any dispute as to their fact-checking being basically good. And Yediot Aharonot is the principal newspaper of the state of Israel. While I may not like the journalistic style of the NOTW, it remains true that it is subject to libel laws like everyone else. Lobojo (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A tabloid reporting a "rumor" is not a Reliable source for what is written there. Not to mention the BLP issues. Everything is subject to libel laws, but not everything is a reliable source. There is also the issue of this topic not being relevant to this article. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing here about a rumor. The tabloid states "rabbi xxxx did yyyy on zzzzz", here are the photographs. Lobojo (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The photo on the left shows a man (I don't know what he looks like, but I'm guessing that's him) outside a blurry building. The photos on the right doesn't show him. That's not evidence and no reliable source would use that photo as evidence. I often times walk at train stations and down Loop street in Cape Town, places where illegal drugs are sometimes sold - a photo of me walking down Loop street does not make me a drug buyer, or dealer, or a Scientologist. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t23:22z
    You misunderstood my point. I was just making the point that it is not a rumor, it is a news article. That isn't the evidence. That it just an illustration of the story, showing it was on the front page. The evidence against him is set out in the text of the article. And in the other articles in the other papers. Lobojo (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cindy Crawford unsourced for 6+ months

    I find this both baffling and surprising, but the Cindy Crawford article has been a walking WP:BLP violation for over half a year now. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of articles lack sourcing, more important is there anything that violates BLP or is otherwise untrue? Benjiboi 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I question whether it is appropriate to have a disambiguation link to Cindy Crawford (porn star) at the top of the page. Is the porn actress even notable? *** Crotalus *** 02:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Iron Sheik

    The Iron Sheik article makes a number of potentially libelous claims and relies upon very poor sources (or in many cases, none at all). Please assist in looking this over and removing anything which could be defamatory. I would do it myself but I'm about to sign off. Thank you. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken a quick pass at it removing chunks. If others could also look there's a lot of problems and the sources seem dubious but I'm not familiar with the wrestling universe. Benjiboi 23:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maryscott O'Connor

    Maryscott O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A biased POV in an inaccurate item that is irrelevant to bio // Jules Siegel (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Schrodingers Mongoose added a highly biased description of a diary currently being discussed on Maryscott's site. This is not part of her biography. The item implies that the diary should be deleted. While the diary does have a tendentious title written in great despair, it is a response to extremely vicious attacks by a single group in the course of a political battle. Some of these attacks are so disgusting that they have been hidden by the site moderators. There is no reason to delete the diary. The issues are fully discussed. The item appears to be written by one of the people on the attackers' side as part of an external effort to publicize the diary and embarrass Maryscott. It fails to qualify as a legitimate entry because of its biased POV, and its irrelevance to the life and work of Maryscott O'Connor. I have removed the item twice but Schrodingers_Mongoose keeps restoring it. [[23]][reply]

    Jules_Siegel seems to believe that Ms. O'Connor is entitled have no mention whatsoever of the significant public controversy swirling around the noticeable anti-semitic material present at her site, even though a wiki search for "My Left wing" leads to "Maryscott O'Connor". My edit does not imply that the diary should be deleted; its existence is simply mentioned along with the controversy that it has generated, along with a couple of the places where the diary is being discussed (I included sites linked to both sides of the political spectrum for balance. Jules_Sigel has made no effort to improve the section, but continues to delete it, and is clearly emotionally involved as demonstrated by his/her comments above. Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The diary in question does not contain any antisemitic material. It is directed specifically at some Jews on MyLeftWing who harass users -- including other Jews -- who post opinions and facts that are not favorable to the Zionist side in the Palestinian question. At the time that I removed the item it contained no third-party, balanced references, but rather home page links to two highly political sites without specific references to the MyLeftWing diary. Both sites have been reliably accused of suppressing criticism of Israel. Harassment of critics of Israel's Palestine policies is by now a well-known Internet phenomenon. Many examples of this are found in comments on MyLeftWing. Criticism of Israel and individual Jews, or Jewish groups, does not constitute antisemitism, nor do the transient and clearly reactive emotional responses of the diary's author, who expresses great despair over the rather understandable feelings of hate that she is experiencing as a result of the harassment. As a Jew, I sympathize with her position fully and am frankly embarrassed by being associated against my will with the kind of Jews whose hateful tactics she decries.
    Although Schrodingers Mongoose claims "My edit does not imply that the diary should be deleted...." his edit stated "Though O'Connor is not the listed author of the piece, it remained posted...." If I bothered to "improve" the edit, I would cite some of the many examples of abusive comments that are clearly designed to suppress free discussion of Palestinian issues on MyLeftWing. I might also change the title to "Zionist truth suppression tactics." I've declined to do that because the issue is not relevant to Maryscott's biography. Maryscott O'Connor is a free speech advocate. She's not an antisemite. The Israeli-Palestine issue is just one of many controversies discussed on her site. The latest edit by Schrodingers Mongoose has been reversed by User:C.Fred. It should stay that way. Jules Siegel (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You are making normative judgments and ignoring the relevance of the information. Whether or not the diary is Anti-Semitic to YOU is meaningless. Many sources are listing it as antisemitism, and with good cause: "I find myself, for the first time in my life, hating Jews", says the author, as as well as "Jews regard other human beings as objects, to be sacrificed to the interests of Jews." The article is pure Jew-Hatred by any rational definition, and O'Connor is directly associated with it, as she has willfully published it. Fred C's revert claims no sources were linked; I will be re-posting the section with linked sources included (there are dozens). Schrodingers Mongoose (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Antisemitism

    This category is a hotbed of BLP violations. I know that there's a disclaimer at the top, saying that the category just means that the article discusses anti-Semitism, not that it is actually accusing the subject of being an anti-Semite. But this fine distinction is meaningless (and invisible) from the vantage point of individual biography pages. The reader sees a link saying "Antisemitism" right next to other links saying things like "19xx births," "Artists," or "Writers." They don't see the disclaimer unless they actually click on the link. To the average reader, not versed in the fine points of the Wikipedia categorization system, it sounds an awful lot like Wikipedia is calling the person an anti-Semite.

    All biography articles should be removed from this category. It's tempting to make an exception for obvious historical cases, but any exception will be enlarged to the point that the restriction becomes meaningless. Individual biography articles can discuss reliably sourced allegations of anti-Semitism in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. Categories, because they lack any context or citations, aren't the appropriate place for making distinctions like this. *** Crotalus *** 02:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    :I mostly agree. All living persons should be removed, a new category Category:History of antisemitism should contain all the dead ones. There disclaimers are complete BS IMHO. Lobojo (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that's a tough one. We get at the divergence of truth from fairness. Antisemitism is an ongoing issue and some people are clearly and incontrovertibly anti-semitic. Take away the ability to make those distinctions and you censor the truth. However, in the end the label is a value judgment. Perhaps a category like Judaism and race that would include people, living or not, outside the group but for whom the Jewish race/culture/religion/ethnicity has been a bumpy issue. That's not quite it, but something that omits the subjective part. Wikidemo (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This conversation has been had before. I think the upshot was that anyone who was interested enough in the subject to scan through a dry list of categories at the bottom of an article is capable of clicking on that link and seeing what the category is all about. Is it possible that some rather dim folks may not be able to click on a link and see what the link says? Sure, but those people should not be using Wikipedia, I think. This is a useful category, and in no reasonable way, shape or form violates BLP (and I am something of a BLP hawk). IronDuke 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue has indeed been discussed before, at length - in fact, Crotalus is trying a different venue to achieve a result he dismally failed at before: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_26#Category:Antisemitism. At one time there was a Category:Antisemitic people, which did suffer from the issues raised above - however, this Category is not that one, and does not suffer from these issues. It is not a violation of WP:BLP to say an article discusses antisemitism in some way. There is no implication nor BLP violation in pointing out the rather obvious fact that the Richard J. Green, Tuvia Grossman, Norman Hapgood, John M. Oesterreicher and Joseph Seligman articles discuss antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If that was really what the category meant, then why all the opposition to renaming it so as to make that clear? Saying that there was once a discussion on the issue somewhere does not adequately address BLP concerns. You can't simultaneously argue on one hand that the category clearly isn't an accusation, and then on the other hand insist that it continue to be named in an ambiguous way that is intended to sound like an accusation. *** Crotalus *** 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you recall the rationales given during the overwhelming rejection of your suggestion for renaming the category the last time you made it? Here are some examples:
    There were a number of other reasons given, but I think you get the point. Regarding your final statement, you need to review Begging the question - the category isn't named in an "ambiguous way that is intended to sound like an accusation." Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am persuaded, I didn't see those lengthy discussions, the category is certainly appropriate, though "category:antisemites" would violate BLP, this one does not. I should have read up on more of the past histories before mouthing off. Lobojo (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As long as the article explains how the person is connected with antisemitism (either for or against) in a way that complies with BLP (meaning that any "negative" statements are well-sourced), I don't see what is wrong with placing the article in this category. In other words, if you are reading an article in this category, then you get to the bottom and see that it is in this category, it isn't a surprise, because you have just read all about the person's connection with antisemitism. You don't need to see the disclaimer, because you have just gotten all the information that the disclaimer would provide, and much more. If you start from the category page, then you see the disclaimer. Seems like a pretty good arrangement. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make the purpose of the category clear, I've added Abraham Foxman, Eli Weisel, Oskar Schindler, Yad Vashem and some other antisemitism related articles. Avruchtalk 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One should not include articles in both sub-categories and their super-categories. All of those articles were already in sub-categories of Category:Antisemitism, sometimes multiply so. The purpose of the category is already overwhelmingly and excruciatingly clear, please avoid WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, just taking a page from recent history. One should not throw stones, if... Avruchtalk 05:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhammad al-Asi

    User:Hyperionsteel talk contribs is reinserting extensive inflammatory and inadequately-sourced material (such as from advocacy organizations) in the subject article, and insists that this must be included, has now reinserted twice (and was the original editor putting them in). The article was already tagged by one user as a quote farm, I deleted shaky quotations, leaving the best-sourced. Abd (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Sarandon

    Article has had several versions of the same addition of material by User:Artpot regarding her attendance at an opening party of a jewelery store, attempting to link the attendance to a supposed pro-Israel/anti-Palenstine political stance on Sarandon's part. The material's citations include a New York Post gossip column item and a political forum blog. He ignored requests for more definitive sources. The editor contends that it is important historically, but expresses the intent to link her attendance to her political views in several edit summaries such as here, here, and here. This issue seems to me to violate WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Misra

    Maria Misra's page is still labelled as a stub, but it has already proved controversial. Biased book reviews of her recent book "Vishnu's Crowded Temple" have been inserted and re-inserted, violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. I intend to create a talk page where people might let off some steam, but if the insertion of the biased material continues, it would be appropriate to tag this page. Reddyuday (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to help. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Barack Obama and Michelle Obama

    There seems to be a campaign to downplay Senator Obama's identification with the African American community. This includes: Removal of the statement that his father was black, refering to his multi-racial upbringing as "his mother's middle class American family", removal of Michelle Obama's picture from his article, and on Michelle Obama's article removal of any statement that she is black or African American. It is quite possible that there was no hostile intent here, but I do think this is "potentially harmful" (to use BLP jargon) to Senator Obama's chances in the primary elections which start next week. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, Steve, I think everyone already knows they are black. Or mixed-race (like that famous golfer, Lionel Forrest or something ;-) ...
    And if the voters really are about the race of the candidate, they can look at a picture.
    Dude, you really need to chill out. Why don't you go rent Guess Who (film)? The taxi cab scene alone is worth the price of the rental. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When we lived in Chicago we used to hang out in the Obamas' neighborhood sometimes. :-) p.s. I'm finished with the article. It's not all that bad and I think the other editors are sincere. p.p.s. I don't think many primary voters will base their votes on WP anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lea Rosh

    The article is currently tantalized by User:Hminc with highly negative statements about Lea Rosh, including repeated efforts to place unsourced or poorly sourced assertions. Looking at the revision history of the article, the same is true for User:Sovelet, and User:Catholic from Berlin, which seem to be sock puppets of the same contributor. Although the article seems to be fairly sourced at the moment, it needs to be observed. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll give it an extra pair of eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This article seems to border on being an attack page, but since I'm unfamiliar with the subject and can't read the source material, I can't accurately assess it. I've requested additional assistance at WikiProject Germany. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed one particular egregious statement. I would suggest a total rewrite by an uninvolved editor. The sources and the quotes are used selectively and in my opinion possibly unfairly. Statements like: "she has been accused of doing X, but the accusations were withdraw" are not NPOV editing. ,DGG (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Barry Wellman

    This article has numerous unsubstantiated claims that are clearly being maintained by the subject of the article in a self-promotional manner. These claims are then being used in a self-intersted manner. For instance, see http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/vita/index.html where it states the subject received an "award" of being praised for teaching on wikipedia! (When it seems pretty clear the subject is the wiki editor that added the statement (and all of the other promotional language and continues to revert to it) to the listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.11.39 (talk • contribs) 30 December 2007 (UTC)

    Given the reference here to Professor Wellman's having been "awarded a “Society Barnstar” and a "Diligence Barnstar" in 2007 for his work on Wikipedia" and the similarity to this, your concerns about WP:COI do seem worth inviting response. I'll let User:Bellagio99 know about this conversation in case he'd care to weigh in here. (Please remember to sign your notes on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Moonriddengirl: I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I was awarded Barnstars for work on the social network and social network software articles -- by third parties whom I have never met in real life. They were NOT awarded for work on the Barry Wellman article. However, in response to this unregistered user's request (69.113.11.39),the Barry Wellman articles have been further third-party documented and further third-party documentation will be provided as needed. In addition, another editor Tvoz whom I have never met in real life has voluntarily gone through and removed some possibly contentious material. While I question the blunderbuss edits of 69.113.11.39, specific realistic request for third-party documentation will be provided. Thanks once again. I do think the edits I -- and Tvoz -- provided today -- have made the article stronger. Yours in Wikipedia, Bellagio99 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that the correct URL for viewing the references to the Barnstars is in this frame, not the parent twin-framed webpage. For the sake of good order. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 21:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Bellagio99, and thanks for weighing in. While 69.113.11.39 does seem to have misframed the awards as being related to the Barry Wellman article, I think the question may actually be whether your contribution to that article represents a conflict of interest; if it is, in fact, autobiographical as she or he surmises when stating that "it seems pretty clear the subject is the wiki editor". If that is the case, you should be aware that autobiographical editing is strongly discouraged and that (as the autobiography policy states) you "must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral". For instance, I note that the IP editor neutralized the term "pioneering", but that this term was restored here. The reference provided, however, is a primary source and, I would imagine, not the best choice to verify the use of that term. I see also that the IP editor removed a section led off by an unsourced, vague claim ("It was probably the first study...."), which you later restored without reference and which, though revised by another editor, apparently remains without reference still ([24]). As the autobiography policy emphasizes, "Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner". Respectfully, if you are the subject of this article, you may wish to reconsider contributing to it and instead focus more on your other excellent contributions to Wikipedia, the ones for which you have received peer recognition. In cases where Wikipedia has an article about you, unless removing simple vandalism, it is strongly recommended that you discuss edits on the talk page of the article and allow disinterested individuals to evaluate and implement them according to consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Moonriddengirl, I will remove the edits mention, and keep in mind your general suggestions. They are not Misbegotten (couldn't resist;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Bellagio99 (or should I say Barry Wellman?) and other editors. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I still find much of the language in the article quite self-promotional and certainly not unbiased. If Wikipedia allows such self-focused self-promotion it really draws into question the legitimacy of content overall. It seems that taking Moonriddengirl's advice of avoiding editing your own entry would be a good thing to do instead of trying to write off criticism from a newbie that calls it like they see it - which is self-promotional and autobiographical - both of which even a newbie like me can tell are not acceptable. And by the way, the part on Barry Wellman's Toronto page I was referring to was where it says, "Teaching praised in “Barry Wellman” Wikipedia entry, November 30, 2007: “Students thoroughly enjoy his classes where they are often taught about social networking and various community and technology interactions through an optimistic sociological perspective. As one of his students put it, ‘he uses his wit and vast understanding of his field of study to not only teach us about how society has changed and will change as a result of technology, but makes this learning process an interactive and entertaining one as well.’” which seems like a true joke when it is written by Barry Wellman as an editor. 69.113.11.39 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The material quoted immediately above does not appear in the Wikipedia article at all, so I don't see the relevance (nor do I get the joke). Is there some other grievance being expressed here? The article seems pretty well sourced to me - 55 notes for an article of this length is pretty good, and more than many others - if there are specific "unsubstantiated claims", it would be helpful to have them highlighted. I do agree with Moonriddengirl that third-party sources are preferred, and that words like "pioneered" can be problematic if not properly referenced, so would be best to avoid using them. Tvoz |talk 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tvoz, now that 69.113.11.39 has explained further, I believe that s/he is referring to the bit added by an anonymous IP here, which was restored as part of the mass reversions by Bellagio99 here and again here. There's no evidence that this was added by the subject of the article, but restoring that unsourced material seems imprudent. That material is quoted on Wellman's webpage under "Teaching and Mentoring Awards" with the introduction, "Teaching praised in “Barry Wellman” Wikipedia entry, November 30, 2007...." Again, another reason to avoid autobiography or conflict of interest editing; even if the restoration of that one bit was not the specific intent of the reversion (and it probably wasn't, given that it was subsequently removed here), it creates an aura of impropriety when unsourced, POV material that is used promotionally on the subject's own website is restored to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with 69.x.x.x - the article seems to be quite generous. It's obvious that Wellman is notable, but its difficult to pick out the bits which make him stand out because there's quite a lot of other, less notable stuff in there too. Most of the references are to self-published papers, which should probably be avoided. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, please take another look at the Notes: most of the references are not at all to self-published papers -as far as I can tell, most of them are papers published in respected, many refereed, Journals in the field and in published books by respected houses. Here are just the first few in the Notes: (journals)Sociological Inquiry, American Journal of Sociology, Science, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, ; (books) Networked Neighbourhoods: The Online Community in Context, edited by Patrick Purcell, Guildford, UK: Springer; Netting Citizens: Exploring Citizenship in a Digital Age, edited by Johnston McKay, Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press. And there are many more. As for third-party items, look at the "References" section, which it appears is being expanded. I'm not sure what you mean by "generous" - if there is reliably sourced criticism of Wellman's work available, it absolutely ought to be included as well, but there's no rule that I know of that says if none is found that an article should somehow be cut down. Can you point out what you think should be removed and why? Tvoz |talk 07:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Unindent) If certain editors believe that the article Barry Wellman should be deleted, or somesuch action, just because he dares to hold a Wikipedia account as an editor, then they should withdraw from this thread. Because this is solely about his editing of Barry Wellman, and nothing else. If you see promotional (or I would say positive beneficial) content in the article, make sure you check the edit history to confirm that Bellagio99 added it, or amended it. There is nothing to stop independent editors, such as myself, from adding properly sourced 'tributes' to the subject, as long as we maintain NPOV throughout. The editor and subject cannot be accused of conflict of interest merely because their article contains positive beneficial content. It must be proved that they had a hand in adding it or amending it. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 12:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with this as well. I dont understand why wikipedia even allows people to contribute to their own article at all. As was already stated, unintended bias is very possible. Surely the best option is to have a blanket ban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.238.182 (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ? I haven't seen anybody argue that the article needs to be deleted. Nevertheless, if Bellagio99 is the subject, he should not further edit the article. It's fine to be a {{Notable Wikipedian}}, but autobiographical editing is, again, strongly discouraged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Strongly discouraged" is one thing, a "blanket ban" is quite another, and it is not policy. This conversation shouldn't really continue here, as it's not fair to the subject who is not in violation of any policy that I've seen. Tvoz |talk 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Greg Halford

    I would like some editors to keep an eye on the article Greg Halford, because at the moment there are drug allegations about this person flying about the internet, but no official sources at the moment. So I would like some wikipedians to keep an eye on this page incase unsourced drug allegations find their way onto his article, it has not been added in yet but in the past 24 hours rumors have become stronger and stronge, so please watch the page. 81.151.26.167 (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Taner Akçam

    User:Arsenic99 is again calling Taner Akçam a terrorist in the article and the talkpage. VartanM (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the article and removed the BLP violations from Arsenic99's talkpage comment. VartanM (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Martha Beck biography is seriously biased

    The Martha Beck entry on Wikipedia suffers from severe bias on the part of the writer/s. The entry is not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.240.210 (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • {{sofixit}} Your edit button is clearly working. Cite good sources for all of your content. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion review

    Seth Finkelstein (AfD discussion) is currently listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohamed Elmasry and Zafar Bangash

    Mohamed Elmasry is the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress and Zafar Bangash is a leading Muslim cleric in Toronto. Both their articles are dominated by quotations that look like they've been collected by their opponents and critics to put them in the worst possible light. I'm not sure that a) all these quotations are necessary and b) that they've said done nothing over the years that reflects positively on them or their organizations. The articles needs to be examined by neutral people and, possibly, editors who seem determined to use the article as a platform from which to attack Elmasry need to be advised. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kou Shibasaki's real name a secret?

    Two weeks ago an anonymous removed the real name of actress Kou Shibasaki claiming real name is not opened to the public. I requested the anonymous to clarify the matter since iMDB cites her real name, and today another user replied that Her real name is officially stated as secret, hence wikipedia japanese edition do now allow to write her real name on the article (Japanese wikipedia has an official policy not to write informations that should be kept in secret, to stop itself being like some gosip papers). That sounds reasonable, but would like to hear comments about the matter, and whether this can be used as precedent (maybe to incorporate a clause under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy—unless there is already an explicit clause which I did not notice). Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • If xe has kept xyr real name and personal life secret and never disclosed them publicly, then that is something to take into consideration. You'll need to do more work to determine that, however. I note that the real name can be sourced: Marko Maya (2005-01-09). "Kou Shibasaki: Diva japonesa". Agencia Reforma. México. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. However, Japan has pretty strict privacy laws (I must deal with the "right of likeness" very often), and if indeed there is a law that authorizes or enforces keeping her real name hidden, including it in the English article would make it illegal in Japan. Note that no Japanese article about living persons have images, although we were able to obtain free copies of several artists like Ayumi Hamasaki, Utada Hikaru and Kumi Koda. I think it would be useful to add a new section in the biography policy with differences between other Wikipedias, for future reference. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do no harm" is the relevant policy here for BLP. If multiple WP:RS have reported the name (and IMDB is not terribly RS) then we can source it as then we're not the news agency someone else is. If multiple WP:RS have not reported the name then we should err on the side of caution. Benjiboi 22:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought as much, thanks for weighting in. I have contacted the user in his Japanese talk page to get some clarifications, especially whether there is a law there that protects these names. Images of Japanese artists, even when free, are not accepted in Japan due personality rights disclaimers, and those images have a disclaimer in their Commons page (like Image:Ayumi Hamasaki 2007.jpg) stating that in some jurisdictions the image is protected and could be illegal, just like the Nazi swastika has a disclaimer that states it is banned in some places except for educational purposes. I am thinking whether we have, in our general disclaimer, a point stating "Information found can be considered illegal in some countries" or similar. I like to gather as much information about topics to enlighten others whenever it happens again. We have had a discussion about Japanese law in a Commons deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Utada Hikaru Kanto 2004.jpg for some comments. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the English Wikipedia (hosted in the United States), not the Japanese Wikipedia. I see no reason why we should give Japanese laws any weight when considering article content that otherwise meets our policies. We are not subject to those laws, any more than we are subject to the laws in certain Arab countries that prohibit representational art and photography (not to mention nudity, etc). It's enough trouble just making sure we comply with U.S. copyright laws (which we have to do) without also worrying about bizarre forms of censorship implemented in other jurisdictions around the globe. *** Crotalus *** 23:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that as well. I was looking for a better answer than "fuck everyone else", though. However, I already explained that, if it is a Japanese law, since our servers are in US, it doesn't affect us. But wouldn't that conflict with "Do no harm" principle? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I would not phrase it that way. Every possible action, no matter what, is offensive to someone, somewhere in the world. We have kept images of Muhammad on his page, despite the objection of Islamic editors. We've kept the image on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, despite the same objections. And we were absolutely right to do so. We cannot be a NPOV encyclopedia if we pander to every set of provincial taboos in existence. *** Crotalus *** 01:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I understand that. I was just wondering whether our disclaimer had a "The contents found in any article can be considered illegal or censurable in determined cultures". Which, apparently, we have. So, it seems that basically we can have that information here. Now we go with the other point of view: if we have a courtesy blanking for AFD discussions, and have a "be careful" policy regarding biographies (like not adding personal addresses, children names, etc), can't this be considered a courtesy with the artist (if she wants her name to remain secret, why not have it done?). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In short wikipedia is neither a tabloid (speculative) or censored. If reliable sources have reported the name then it's usually a non-issue. If the subject feels that doesn't cut it then it can be referred to the foundation or oversight as appropriate. Benjiboi 03:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have courtesy blanking for verifiable facts that are publicly reported in widely accessible sources like IMDb and can not be seen as doing any plausible harm, unlike such things as personal addresses. Such blanking is the very antithesis of NOTCENSORED. If the name were truly private and disclosed here, that would of course be another matter. DGG (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for the discussion. I surely understand Japanese law or Japanese wikipedia policy do not matter here in English wikipedia hosted in U.S. Anyway, her name is really stated as secret in official, therefore posting her real name caused deletion of the article 7 times there in Japanese wikipedia (ja:ノート:柴咲コウ/削除). So IF you have same kind of policy of hiding personal secret, then her real name have to be removed from the article. --Peccafly (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From doing a quick search I'd say it's at a tipping point with one more WP:RS sending it over. It does seem to be known but "widely" is subjective so leaving it off the article for now doesn't seem to be a bad idea. Benjiboi 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Felix Rohatyn

    Felix Rohatyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A new user -- The Noosphere -- has edited Felix Rohatyn adding in possibly libelous accusations. He claims to have provided sources, but I'm not sure they're valid. I brought this up here instead of with the user because Rohatyn is a the frequent target of Lyndon LaRouche smear campaigns, and The Noosphere is a LaRouche concept involving... Damned if I know, but Wikipedia amoung other things.

    Basically I'm worried this user is using Wikipedia to libel Rohatyn. I do not believe his sources meet our criteria, but I'm not sure and would like a second opinion. Thanks. // Falcorian (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are right. I removed the poorly cited negative material. The only secondary source then disappeared since it was only used as a source for negative material. Then I tagged the article non-notable. Brutal, ha? :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that user is advancing the LaRouche party line, adding BLP violations to several articles and revert-warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The offending paragraph was added back a third time, and I have the honor of being the third person to remove it. I also removed the "Non-notable" tag. He's probably the 2nd or 3rd best known investment banker in the world (at his peak the best known). As a former Ambassador to France (a career side-light) I think he passes the notability requirement without question. The article does need more material, and seems to be plagiarized from the US State Department bio (note - not a copyright violation). I'll try to get some more info into it. Smallbones (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know he was well-known, but if so then no problem. I question how notable just being an ambassador is. There must be 150 or so of them at a time and don't they change with every new president?Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Miniter

    Richard Miniter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Nicemc is a single purpose account which has been adding material to page about journalist. so-called citations to support attacks are only vague linnks to his books on amazon or the 9/11 report and also to other wikipedia articles. no genuine references. v NPOV, v BLP violations. i have tried removing the material but as a new user, keep getting reverted even when i added blp-dispute template in effort to give article some protection. // Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After a brief glance I concur that the disputed section is clearly Original Research, synthesis and opinion, and should not be in the article (which it currently isn't) --Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A longer look suggest that an IP address added the original research and comments in November 2007 [25], and that this was subsequently modified by another IP, and over the weeks has been removed many times by other IPs and editors, and reinserted repeatedly by User:Nicemc after his/her first edit on December 23. Based on this statement [26] and User:Nicemc and the IPs are one. I will leave a welcome and an explanation of policy on Nicemc's page, which hopefully will do the trick. --Slp1 (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Jeremy Paxman

    Resolved
     – My new edit appears to have been accepted. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My strategy in a situation like this is to look for other sources, rather than just rely on the one you disagree on. Here is an article from the Independent [27] and one from the Observer [28] both reliable sources, that say he was brought up in Worcs, so use these instead. BTW I think the reliable sources noticeboard might be a better spot for another time, but no worries. Solved, no? --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Slp, I've compromised on Yorkshire & Worcs. I'll leave this open for a few days in case it's removed, but happy for it to be closed after that. I reported it for review here because I felt that it was perhaps a case of tendentious editing. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daphne Rosen

    Resolved

    "Daphne has recently changed her look, she has darkened her hair, pumped up her breast size, had collagen lip injection and butt implants, and removed her lower rib bone." The first two are probably true, the last three are dubious without a citation.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sentence removed, as unsourced Jons63 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bert McCracken

    Resolved

    Bert McCracken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I was not paying much attention to this article until I was on vandal patrol and reverted (and subsequently unreverted) large changes by 66.26.85.49 (talk · contribs). I became alarmed when the user placed a message on my talk page about how the subject... eats his own boogers. He also placed a few comments on the talk page that have worried me (i.e., subject is a drug user). Upon looking deeper at the article, I see that there is a good deal of content that is unsourced or poorly sourced, including comments on drug use, past girlfriends, hating his religion, "getting beat up" (someone tried to remove this part; it was reverted), and dropping out of school. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If material is negative or potentially controversial and lacks a quality reference, remove it. I've done that now, per WP:BLP/--Docg 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alan Carr

    Alan Carr - Constantly this page is being blatantly vandalised for no reason. Libellous and false information is repeatedly posted and factual information is being tampered with.

    This article shuld not be deleted but I feel this article should be protected in some form, as the pointless vandalism is ongoing.

    --Markmacmillan 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

    I've requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Primal Therapy

    • Primal therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Since my recent edit of the article ([29]), which removed a link to a website, the presence of which represents a BLP violation, in my opinion, an edit war has been raging. A key page on that website which would make any link to it a breach of BLP is here [30].
    • It was the removal of the last remaining link to this website by me (after I read that recently added page) that seems to have triggered what appears to be a coordinated counter assault notably by an unregistered user, 76.90.103.220, and others including Randroide who was involved in an earlier BLP issue in the same article. I have not yet had time to see who appears to be defending the article, if anyone, other than Twerges. A few of the edits appear to be valid neutralisation of language which may be worth retaining but the majority appear to be either the adding of links and text to the Criticisms section or, most importantly, restoring of the links to the website in question, even to related articles I had removed them from months ago. There are many paragraphs of external links added to the Criticisms section many of which would never measure up to Wikipedia's standards even without invoking BLP policy.
    • I now believe that the links to the website [31] and the links to Tom Werges' web pages have no place in the article or the related articles because they don't meet Wikipedia's standards especially the more stringent requirements of BLP that apply here. Without these links being removed and the people who deliberately engaged in destructive editing being blocked from the article and all the related articles, about Arthur Janov and his therapy, I can't see how any constructive work on it can happen from this point on. // GrahameKing (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by User:Randroide

    I present edits removing sources and sourced information made by User:GrahameKing in Primal Therapy:[32] [33][34][35][36]

    I challenge User:GrahameKing to present a similar list of (IMO) destructive edits performed by us, those other users User:GrahameKing is asking to be blocked to edit Primal Therapy. Such list does NOT exist.
    User:GrahameKing even blanked a whole Talk Page [37], by far the (IMO) weirdest move I have seen at Wikipedia. GrahameKing insisted in blanking discussions and sourced chunks of data from the talk page, over and over again [38][39][40].

    Please note that User:GrahameKing express allegedly WP:BLP-related worries only in case of criticism against Arthur Janov. On the other hand User:GrahameKing is extremely liberal inserting lines of criticism made by Janov against other living persons, calling them "charlatans", "would-be practioners", "inexpert", "abusive therapists" and "lacking the empathy and technical knowledge necessary" [41].

    • I -UserRandroide- think that both sourced sides (pro and anti Janovian) should be present in the article. Therefore, I think that the edit by User:GrahameKing linked above is a very good edit.
    • OTOH, User:GrahameKing seems to think that criticisms against Janov should be erradicated from the article, and those Users who add those criticisms (like me) blocked. I disagree vehemently on this point.

    Unlike him/her, I am not advocating the block from the article of User:GrahameKing (he/she made very good contributions to the article, despite some destructive edits). I am only providing the whole picture about User:GrahameKing, whose statements -IMHO- should be taken cum grano salis.

    See also that User:GrahameKing is not shy of adding unsourced blocks of text [42][43], flagrant POV "appropiation" of the term "Primal Therapy" [44], his/her own speculations about the future [45] and lines that sound in my ears like unsourced Janovian sales pitchs [46][47] Randroide (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is obviously a complex, long-running dispute. Whatever the history of the participants, I am inclined to agree with GrahameKing that linking to debunking primal therapy is problematic. The site does nto meet reliable sourcing requirements, which would not necessarily eliminate it as an external link, but the subpage mentioned specifically (here) certainly contains unverified negative allegations about a living person. That said, I tend to think that more constructive work on the articles might happen with more open-minded, cooperative conversation about them on the talk page. The issues here go beyond BLP into content dispute, and, if the warnings about edit warring issued to the two primary editors of the article do not take effect, I would be inclined to recommend seeking page protection until the dispute can be ironed out properly at the article's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please correct me I did not get you right: "DebunkingPrimalTherapy.com" can be linked as long as we abstain to link (much less quote) the contentious "_former_trainee_interview " page.
    Did I get you right?. If not, could you please be more specific?. Thank you.Randroide (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. Linking to the site at all is problematic per WP:BLP, which specifies that "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." WP:EL specifies that with regards to biographical material about living persons, "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The website may provide links to reliable sources with editorial oversight, but it does not boast the same for itself, and it contains a subpage that is derogatory and unverifiable. I think it would be far better to mine the website as a source of usable material—by which I mean looking for links to published journal articles or tips to books—and leave it out of the article altogether. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Moonriddengirl, for your time and your careful consideration of what may appear on the surface, as I presented it above, to be a complex problem. I have explored the page protection option you recommended and regret that I can not follow it just on principle, at this time, as it would make me an accomplice to locking in clear BLP violations of the worst kind (inadequately sourced, potentially libellous claims) - and I do use my actual name. I noticed someone has already given page protection to the main article but not to the related articles. I reported on this noticeboard as it appears to offer adminstrative intervention where my efforts to uphold BLP policies had been to no avail. The only intervention that I can see that would be consistent with BLP policy would be to immediately and unconditionally remove all links to the two websites which contain references to the potentially libellous claims ([48],[49]) and to block those who added these links (76.90.103.220, Twerges, Zonbalance) from editing the relevant articles (Primal Therapy, Arthur Janov, Scream therapy, The Primal Scream, and also Debunker vandalised by Zonbalance) because they are not properly registered users (who would only be subject to formal warnings if they were). It was I who added the link at the end of Types of patients treated to his website long before Twerges himself made me aware of the problematic interview which he was preparing to rebut - so ironically it is thanks to him that we discovered this problem. Once this report is history, any links to it such as the link to it placed on Talk:Primal_therapy by Randroide (and any others that may be found) should also be removed of course, preferably by an admin, not me (I've sworn off edit wars) - though maybe such links would just get broken by archiving. I do think page protection is a good idea. Someone should make a bot to seek out and remove links to sites that have been identified as BLP-unfriendly etc. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if you need anything from me. GrahameKing (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moonriddengirl asked me for my opinion. I partly agree with her. I think the site is usable in some manner for the purpose of the article on the theory. We do not avoid a site because some small portion of it is unsuitable. We shouldn't link specifically to an unsuitable part, but using it as an external link as a whole is indirect enough. the safest way is an external link. As she says, there is no shortage of unimpeachable materials to use at references for criticizing the theory. DGG (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Carney

    • DSatYVR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be intent on overwhelming this article with criticism of Mark Carney, the incoming governor-general of the Bank of Canada. I warned the user about sourcing to blogs (and repeatedly drew his attention to WP:BLP) but he restored his content—with some slightly improved sourcing—still using sources such as this video which is essentially an attack on Carney. I would very much appreciate someone else taking a look at this, since political articles are generally not my area, and since this appears to be a larger issue than just poor citations. Thanks. // Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, looks like material added is too further some agenda. I have tried to copy edit the article but could use serious help. Thanks for the heads up. --Tom 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah some agenda. Why not look in the mirror boys? You hide behind WP:BLP when the blogs sourced are attached to a legitimate and registered Investor Advocacy Group and linked to their webpage:
    And apparently a Federal Canadian MP's website Garth Turner has his blog attached The Turner Report but is still targeted for deletion...
    So why the deletion frenzy? Apparently any website containing the word 'blog' is a worthy target. Does this one fit the bill although it is attached the national newspaper? National Post-Diane Francis Apparently so because you deleted it also.
    None of these are anonymous blogs posted by faceless writers. But they have one thing in common and that is that they are critical of Mark Carney and I think that is the main reason you do what you do and hide behind this: WP:BLP. Read this posted above. I provide secondary sources to back up the attached blogs and you still delete entirely all references including the secondary verifiable references. All this to say, who really is the problem here? You two or me? DSatYVR (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, all. I have no fish to fry in this particular clambake but will take a look at the article. DSatYVR, please Assume Good Faith (WP:AGF) on the part of all the editors. I will look at the blogs you mentioned. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did look at two of the sources which have remained on the page as of this date, and I must say I couldn't find anything in the Diane Francis blog that seemed to directly back up the asserted facts in the article, so perhaps that shouldn't be there as a source. The video should be a "See Also," not a reference, because what has been put into the article is more or less an interpretation of the video, rather than a reporting of what Mr. Carney actually said. An interpretation, by its very nature, is Original Research. The phrase "refused to explain" is, again, an interpretation of what went on. It would be better to say "did not explain," if in fact that statement is true.
    In truth, this discussion should be on the Talk Page over there, so I am copying it and pasting it. I'm sure that, all working together, we can get a good article out of this biography. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daniel Jonah Goldhagen

    • Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've encountered User:Mamalujo editing on other bios and articles which seems to greatly favor a conservative Catholic perspective like removing items critical of the Catholic church or Catholicism while adding items critical against perceived anti-Catholics. Author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen has written A Moral Reckoning and both the book (which this board would not necessarily address) and his bio have had rather scathing remarks added and (troubling to me at least) at least one reference credited to "one critic" who turned out to be a leader within the Catholic Bishops writing for the Catholic News Service. If someone would be willing to review the bio (it's not terribly long), history of changes (worthy content removed and dubious content added) and ensure the references are accurate and accurately portrayed I would appreciate it. I'm still dealing with rewritting and re-referencing material this same editor removed from another bio so would like to hold off jumping into yet another one. // Benjiboi 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking into it. I've removed some material redundant to the book articles and am beginning to search for wider news sources in order to determine weight. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done what I can for this one at the moment. We'll see where it goes from here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, I've worked rather extensively on the sourcing and am attempting to address what I see as BLP issue in the question of weight in Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and A Moral Reckoning. It does seem problematic to me when a neutral statement referenced to The New York Times is replaced with what seems a considerably more emotional one sourced to The Weekly Standard. There is a conversation about it at Talk:A Moral Reckoning. I'd welcome input in those articles from other BLP volunteers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Flavio Alves

    Actually I'm finding your unique editing style more troubling than the alleged autobiographying of the primary author. I'm just guessing here, but the connection to him working for Hillary Clinton as a gay asylum-seeker seems to be interesting with the presidential primaries starting...today. You have made a dizzying amount of edits over the past four days and now the primary author is trying to catch up to your work. While you may not have intended to come off as gutting and repurposing this BLP I can certainly see why that seemingly new editor might think so. Plus you've labeled them as the subject of the article seemingly without any proof. I ask for others to step in here as well as I don't speak Spanish so mostly it'll be hard for me to verify the references and what they do or don't say but the current version seems to dissect rather than inform. I also question the value of citing a person's salary without a very good reason to do so. Benjiboi 23:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I have protected the article. Edit warring on a BLP is poor form. Sort this out on the talk page of the article and let me know when you are done.--Docg 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note. I only went to the article as a result of the above notice. I haven't been editing except to answer talk page comments (only the above editors comments were there) and to remove the {{tl:autobiography}} tag which, again, the above editor added. I'm not sure if the primary editor is aware of this conversation here, how wp works or even how to use the talk pages. Benjiboi 23:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outsider's view. 1st they speak Portugese in Brazil. 2nd, from the couple of English language links in the article, I'd question the subject's notability (it could go one was or the other). Maybe the best resolution would be to simply delete the article? Smallbones (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good call. Duly nuked as a non-notable BLP with aggravating issues (or WP:COATRACK)--Docg 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks guys. I do not think the subject was notable too, but since he was there... I was just trying to keep the record straight.
    Benjiboi - Please assume good faith. I put the tag "auto" based on unique information not available anywhere in the first version of the article and the account being a SPA (editing this article here and in the Portuguese Wikipedia). The author put hthe tags for Clinton (several times) to raise the subject's profile. The salry was there as a way to show the service he was providing was not free or with a symbolic value, quite the opposite.
    Doc: Please, this was not WP:COATRACK. I was just trying to sort the article that looked like self promotion and read like advertising (please check the first version of the article). --Legionarius (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted.--Docg 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This article should be restored to Wikipedia. I've found numerous news media hits for him via a Google search and there's of course the fact that he's written a book about gay refugees seeking asylum in the U.S. Rather than delete the article, it should have been given the opportunity for cleanup. I'm requesting the article be restored to avoid me having to take it to deletion review. -- ALLSTARecho 06:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    just a comment on that: Flavio Alves looks to be a common name in Portuguese. A more specific search like '"Flavio Alves" asylum' brings far less hits. I researched the article extensively and could not find much.--Legionarius (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this search string: flavio alves, gay
    That's what I used and it brought back everything from The Advocate magazine archives to The New York Times. -- ALLSTARecho 07:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I saw that. There are some very old articles(10 yrs+) in a Brazilian newspaper too. Most are "one line interviews" or trivial mentions. But let's wait to see if the page is undeleted, so you can see the full list I amassed.--Legionarius (talk) 07:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Crane

    Resolved

    In biography on Matt Crane, there is a link to his brother Anthony Crane, former J. Crew model. However, when you click on that link, it sends you to a page for a different Anthony Crane, not Matt Crane's brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.67.243 (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been fixed. That's the sort of error that anyone is free to remove. Next time you come across such, please feel free to just go ahead and edit it. As long as you leave a note in the edit summary, your reasons for doing so should be clear. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shore Regional High School

    Resolved

    Monmouth Beach, New_Jersey#Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Shore Regional High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unreferenced potentially libelous comments about the principal and other members of the school board. I have reverted once and warned. Could editors consider keeping watchlisting? --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 10:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll watchlist them for a while. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please delete User talk:CarlHewitt from the Wikipedia

    Please delete User talk:CarlHewitt from the Wikipedia.

    Thanks,

    Carl Hewitt--98.207.42.122 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Aleta (Sing) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Juliano

    Was just created about an alledged criminal, and so far has no inline citations whatsoever. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • {{sofixit}} I suggest putting "Joseph" "Sonny" "Juliano" into Google News Archive, getting out your trusty copy of {{cite news}}, and adding the citations that you see to be missing, boldly and mercilessly correcting anything that the news sources don't support. Uncle G (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth Kucinich

    A cadre of editors continue to add the following to her bio. She has a tongue piercing. When asked if she would remove it in the event that she became first lady, Kucinich replied that she considered it too much a part of her to do so.[2]

    I have removed it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is based off a speculative event. Dennis Kucinich is currently polling in the single digits and it is highly unlikely that he will get the Democratic nomination. Only in the highly unlikely scenario that he is elected president will this comment have any relevance. WP:CRYSTAL states that only speculative information which is likely to happen should be mentioned in the article. Secondly it is undue weight given to a cosmetic aspect of the person suggesting that she is mostly known for being the wife of Dennis Kucinich and having a peirced tongue. Perhaps I am wrong, but is the notion that she has a peirced tongue a notable fact to be included? It appears to be nothing more than minor triva. Arzel (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, I think the tongue piercing has become relevant to her notability, given how frequently it's discussed in coverage of her by third party reliable sources. In a perfect world, nobody would give a shit, but a perfect world this ain't. I'm also not convinced it's a WP:BLP issue, since the information isn't negative and it's well-referenced. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I don't think there's any WP:CRYSTAL violation here, since it's her statement of her own (contingent) future plans. It's like saying that Mike Gravel's pledge to abolish the IRS if elected president is a WP:CRYSTAL violation, since he's extraordinarily unlikely to be elected president and unlikely to succeed in abolishing the IRS even if he was. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your response, perhaps I wasn't completely clear. The tongue peircing aspect would appear to be undue weight. As for the comparrison to Gravel, that is a completely different situation. One cannot compare a political position on the IRS to a future fashion statement. When it becomes clear that Gravel is not going to be president, his position on the IRS is still valid, however EK postion is not. Remove the "if she is first lady aspect" and you have, she has a peirced tongue. She also has Red Hair (which is noted in those same RS's), should that be mentioned as well? Arzel (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEIGHT states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As I understand it, this means that things' relative prominence in reliable sources are what matters for weight, not how important the Wikipedia community thinks they really are. Reliable sources, unfortunately, seem to think that her tongue piercing is a big deal.
    As for the Gravel bit, WP:CRYSTAL contains three elements. The first two are clearly inapplicable, I think, though feel free to disagree. This leaves the third one, which states "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." This means, as I read it, that something like "Kucinich may run for Governor of Ohio" would be, absent any well-sourced speculation, inappropriate per WP:CRYSTAL. However, this tongue business is not original research, since it's sourced.
    Again, I would personally rather see it not included, but I think according to our policies it should probably be in there, and I don't think WP:IAR applies here. I'd welcome other opinions, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say ref it and include it but certainly not in the lede; it has gotten mainstream news coverage and it's quite clear that issues of the changing nature of the traditional wife role of the US president are of interest in this closely watched election. Even with a fraction of voters one percent can certainly add up when millions are casting ballots and even more are exposed to the coverage. Benjiboi 10:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to add that, IMHO, removing it seems pointless if this same info keeps getting reinserted; even if wonky I feel it's better to try to work it in and, if needed, balance it. Hopefully then the cadre can move on to something more pressing. Benjiboi 10:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, add it. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue at all. It is not Wikipedia making a prediction, it is Dennis Kucinich stating what his wife's intention is. However, I don't think the whole business of her piercing should be in the article. How is it relevant? Someone above said that it has become relevant to her notability. How? What is her notability? As far as I can see, her sole notability is that she is the wife of a presidential candidate. Let's face it, she is getting some extra attention solely because of her appearance (I'll just leave it at that) and the fact that she is a 30-year-old woman married to a 61-year-old presidential candidate. It is the sort of thing that sets gossipy tongues (pierced or otherwise) to wagging. But Wikipedia is "not" a gossip site, it is an encyclopedia, and the jewelry-wearing habits of a minor presidential candidate do not seem particularly relevant. Which, I think, makes it a BLP issue; if it is not relevant to her notability, it does not belong in the article, right? 6SJ7 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Her notability is that she has been covered significantly by reliable third party sources independent of her. I agree that this is likely in large part due to her appearance, and I find that unfortunate (I suspect that she does too). The piercing has been a significant reason for this coverage as well, which is why it's relevant to her notability. Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between coverage by reliable third party sources independent of the subject for good reasons and such coverage for silly reasons. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dissagree. She clearly would not be known for her appearance if she were not married to Dennis Kucinich. Her notability revolves entirely around that aspect of her life. The tongue piercing is tabloid journalism at its best. Just because it has been reported doesn't mean it need be reported here. She has had her tongue piercing for a long time now, and she was never notably until she married Dennis Kucinich. This is the main justification (IMO) that it falls under undue weight and violates BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To the extent she is notable at all, it is for being the attractive wife of a presidential candidate, not just for being the wife of a presidential candidate. Kucinich is not enough of a mainstream candidate to justify his wife being a subject of an article on the basis of his candidacy alone. The only other candidates' spouses who have gotten their own articles are those of the front-runners. Oh, wait, there's also Jeri Kehn Thompson, another younger, attractive, spouse. If Elizabeth Kucinich were not the spouse of a presidential candidate, the article would not exist. If she were not considered attractive, the article would not exist. Some (not just wikipedia editors, but he mainstream media, as the many citations that have been provided demonstrate) consider that tongue piercing to be part of that attractiveness. (I don't get it, but some people consider tongue piercings to be sexy.) As such, it's appropriate for the article. Personally, I think "attractive wife of a presidential candidate" is a pretty lame basis for notability; and I would support deletion of the article. But that discussion has already occurred, not just once but twice.--TJRC (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SO then an unattractive wife of a presidential candidate would not have an article? That is silly. She has an article for being the wife of a presidential candidate, that others feel otherwise is simply an extention of the BLP issues. Show me one other person that is notable for having a peirced tongue. Arzel (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Cruise

    Can people take a look at this article - it seems pretty unbalanced to me - look at the size of the south park section, the section using newspaper speculation (admittly in RS) to discuss the impact of his PR people changing. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've excused myself from editing Scientology related articles so I am not going to do anything. However it seems to me that what is notable is Tom's, and the Church of Scientology's, reaction to the program. One South Park episode itself is not that notable. But this one is hanging on lots of coatracks here on WP. :-) I also made some needed BLP changes to TomKat, Scientology is not mentioned there. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we expect an article on BillHill soon? Surely more notable than TomKat. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamie Leigh Jones and Charles Boartz

    Per WP:BLP#Articles about people notable for only one event, these should probably be merged into a single article about the incident. Thoughts? As for the BLP violations, there are a few more in the articles; cleaning them up now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second check, you seem to have gotten them all after all. Good work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be prepared to do the merger myself, if other users agree. Does KBR rape allegation seem like an appropriate title? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ouze Merham and a student columnist

    Ouze Merham is a ficticious Israeli general who supposedly interviewed a young Ariel Sharon who made insane, racist, and violent statements against Palestinians. The fabricated Sharon "quote" has bounced around the Internet for many years. According to that article (which is essentially all derived from information given by the activist pro-Israeli group CAMERA, it is frequently used as anti-Israel propaganda. One example it cites: a columnist for the student run newspaper Daily Illini printed the quote as true, then retracted it. The student was mentioned by name. Per WP:BLP, I question the idea of naming a non-notable journalism student, not least based solely on reports from a partisan activist group. <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No problem in identifying the journalist, who abandoned all hope of anonymity when he or she took up that profession. In fact, NOT to identify him or her when the identity is known would be almost criminal. The reporter involved is a graduate student working on a newspaper that aims for the highest in professional quality. If you can't stand the heat, stay our of the journalistic kitchen. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim Kozimor

    Resolved
     – Material deleted

    Whoever this [deleted] is, he has some people in Sacramento who dislike him. See this diff which combines the edits of three accounts. Even if WP:BLP didn't exist, the edits should be reverted because they are preposterous, silly, & lack a source reliable or not. I wouldn't bother reporting the matter here since I reverted these edits, but I found out about these edits due to this blog post, which means these edits probably should be purged from the system but I'm not familiar enough with the various Admin tools to know which one to use. (Is there a FM for me to read that will help me get up to date?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You did well in reverting these additions. I would suggest you write a note on these user's talk page, with a gentle "no-no". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion of Kozimor at the linked blog entry seems good-natured and friendly to the subject, and the URL they use to point to Kozimor's article doesn't use a version number. There is no hint in the blog entry that version history is understood. Since the current version has been fixed, there does not seem much reason to delete versions just because of a case of routine vandalism, even though it does insult the subject. (If we did that generally we would be deleting versions from biographical articles hundreds of times per day). EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robbi McMillen deletion

    On various occasions has the management of artist Robbi McMillen contacted Wikipedia in order to have all metion of him removed from this website. As of yet, no such changes have been made. McMillen and his management demand that such pages be deleted, and that any pages about him must be removed until he is 18 years of age - we would not like this site, under reputation to cause any legal or moral damage, or damage to the artist's personal life. If confirmation is required, please email dan.casey'AT'robbimcmillen.com

    All articles in all languages or containing mention of Robbi McMillen must be deleted. This is a request from his management and from his family. All pages, including those in Gaelic and his discography must be removed or a legal representative will contact Wikipedia. If you are in any doubt, please contact his management through his website.

    Also, please note that Robbi's management are his family and a member of the family's legal team.

    Notable Usenet personalities

    • Notable Usenet personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - While the capsule summaries that link to existing articles may be acceptable without cited sources, there are a number of listed individuals without either a wikilink or any sources. The "notable" in the article title clearly means "controversial", which (my understanding) means source or remove. I'd clean this up myself, but don't have time - would appreciate someone else dealing with. // -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I have some doubts about the notability of some of the ones who do have their own articles, too, but that's far enough outside the realm of my area of expertise that I'm not going to touch that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blair Hornstine

    Basically two concerns.

    1.) While editing the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome article I noticed this diff by editor 69.141.30.129. Looking at the edits of 69.141.30.129 it appears there are articles that have information on Blair Hornstine that this new editor has issues with. It might be polite for an administer inquire about it.

    2.) Looking at some of the material removed, my opinion is that it is not encyclopedic, and somewhat tabloidish for the notability of the subject. I have no interest in this subject or what transpires based upon what I have reported. Ward20 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Herbert Schildt

    One further concern. Should a person merit a wikipedia article merely on the strength of writing computer books? The article was written, I believe, by people who wanted to take Schildt down, and as such Herb and his family may find it an irritation and an embarassment. I certainly enjoyed Born to Code in C, but I would prefer Bjarne Stroustrup to Herb on C++.

    At this point, we have a great article...about a hard working decent fellow who didn't deserve the mud hurled at him. Let us now praise famous men, and their children after them, as the good book sez. Maybe now we have to go through the entire catalog of publishers like O'Reilly and Apress and add a bio of each guy and gal.

    Like me!

    Of course, that's nonsense. An encyclopaedia cannot chronicle the lives of every hard-working, decent, and creative person, or me neither. Perhaps it should, now that storage is free; as a kid, I never understood why my physician father was in Who's Who, but my friend Carl Stankovich's father, who worked in the steel mills, wasn't; I was too innocent to realize that you paid for entry, but also needed some of what Bourdieu calls Distinction.

    But such an encyclopedia, with a biography of anyone who wants one, isn't wikipedia's policy, is it?

    No, there has to be a genuine lifetime achievement, or negative achievement in the case of the Unabomber, Manson, or Tiny Tim. The person has to be either famous or notorious, larger than life. Or just mega-dumb in an amusing way.

    Perhaps Herb doesn't want to be a wikipedia stud. Perhaps he wishes that the article was never made. And perhaps it was written to take him down by people who can't write.

    Or something like that.

    The bottom line? Leave the article alone, perhaps with the facts about the anti-Schildt campaign put into neutral perspective: I think those facts are interesting because his persecution prefigured the much more serious persecution of Kathy Sierra, another computer author who attracted the rage of programmers who can't write. Or code with any grace.

    But, start a new wikipedia project to profile computing authors as such, selecting the most famous and treating them with ordinary decency. Leave me out until I publish more books.

    Edward G. spinoza1111 Nilges, well-known net.kook and author of "Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler", Apress 2004. 202.82.33.202 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The biography of this computer author was created, I believe, to be able to insert libelous information concerning his content and a pointer to a nonexistent offensive neologism "bullschildt", by people working on behalf of a competing author for his commercial gain.

    As such, it violated wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons.

    Pointers were added to apparently solid information concerning Herb's "errors" on C: but on investigation, the reader discovers that the "errors" are in telling the student the things she knows in order to be an effective C programmer (for example, that negative numbers are usually twos complement) but which are not explicitly mentioned in a new C standard, which itself isn't universally implemented and fails to "standardise" a non-standardisable language which deliberately allows the programmer to create non-deterministic and machine-dependent code.

    I have cleaned up the article and will revert vandalism to this cleanup, which has already occured and which includes libelous information concerning my record, demonstrating the intent of the vandals, who are probably the creators of the Schildt libels, to use wikipedia, Amazon, and usenet not to communicate but to destroy people, either for commercial gain, or for cheap thrills.

    Edward G. Nilges, author, "Build Your Own .Net Language and Compiler" Apress 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.65.177 (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Surprisingly, there are actually 994 Google hits for "bullschildt," with Jargon File being the #1 reference. This editor's attacks on the article's talk page do not inspire confidence. *** Crotalus *** 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Spinoza1111 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) for some background. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This article does need some reliable sources. It shouldn't be hard to find some, though; he's clearly a controversial figure in the world of compilers. *** Crotalus *** 08:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)I was blocked last year for objecting, strongly and in no uncertain terms, to vandalism in the name of anti-vandalism, by people unqualified to write about the subject matter and who seemed to be convenience store clerks. I believe wikipedia is by this meta- or second-order- vandalism being privatized and the remaining commons trashed in the name of Randian ethics, which was to be expected, given the bizarre views of its founder, where it was most unfortunate that this sort of person be the founder in the first place. I believe this privatization is being carried out as I believe the attack on Schildt was carried out, for commercial gain, sanctified by a prevailing libertarianism, or, the anarchy and destructiveness of the lower middle class.203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)It is of course only necessary for you to bring this unfair blockage up if you had no case in starting the attacks on Schildt and did so in bad faith, and perhaps for commercial gain. When it comes to firing off shots when you seek only to destroy, any old iron will do. But it certainly shows that you first and foremost aren't interested in computer science or C, but personalities, faddish either positively and negatively, and in a Stalinist fashion, where innuendo trumps reason203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You've got to be joking, surely! Like many professional C coders I used Schildt's C book as a reference in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were adequate, clearly written, examples of the genre, and at a time when C was slowly becoming standardized this book and others like it did a lot to guide the programmer through the minefield of real world C programming. The article isnt' well written and definitely needs improvement, but adding information about so-called "bullschildt" would not serve Wikipedia well. --Tony Sidaway 11:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He isn't joking. I've attended standards committee meetings where Schildt's books have been discussed. His books are controversial. This answer was created for people, including professional coders, who grew up with these books and are surprised to learn that what they thought to be good books are not universally respected by experts. If you want book reviews by some C and C++ standards committee members, see the reviews of Schildt's books published in C-Vu (the journal of the ACCU) which you can find archived on-line here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. This author's works have not been positively received by experts, who observe that they contain errors. Don't let the Jargon File mislead you into thinking that this is just some Internet silliness and an excuse for a pun. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stubbed the article down a bit--it really was full of all kinds of HOWTO stuff and links to downloadable code, and an odd bit of editorialization unrelated to the criticism. If you could collate the more significant negative reviews (for instance I wouldn't know whether Francis Glassborrow is or is not a standards committee member) and precis them, I think this would make the article better. --Tony Sidaway 14:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I, personally, know that Francis is a committee member because I've sat next to him in meetings. To prove it to other people: I'm not sure where one can find a list of all of the occasions that he's been the BSI HOD, or an additional delegate, over the years, but you can confirm that it's happened on at least one occasion by reading the ISO WG21 minutes for 2001-10-21. As noted, he has written rather a lot of book reviews. As far as Wikipedia's needs are concerned, he is definitely someone knowledgeable on the subject writing in his field. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)How many people CREATED those 994 hits for "Bullschildt", and did they know each other? In fact, were they not in fact a group of people some of whom were organized by the author of a competing book, who then attracted fellow-travelers because on the Internet, joining Lynch mobs is a favorite indoor sport?[reply]

    Furthermore: just grow up. Leave the things, and the name-calling, of childhood behind.

    Almost all the "errors" I've seen errors were matters of interpretation, that held Herb, and no other author, to a standard of faithfulness to a "language standard" that (1) isn't fully implemented in real compilers and (2) futile for a non-deterministic (because aliasing) language like C. They were an attempt by C fundamentalists to show off a false superiority constituted in the knowledge of what the standard doesn't specify, and what main() returns, concerns that are orthogonal to the needs of real C programmers...many of whose compilers aren't conformant.

    The people who attacked Herb seemed to have wanted him to basically shut up so that C praxis could be a matter of secrets and the private property of consultants. For example, they take him to task merely for saying that "negative numbers are twos-complement"...because the standard makes no such requirement.

    As it shouldn't: a language standard has to be silent about countless implementation details...which the student has to know to get his assignments done...which the working programmer also has to know. A reasonably literate person, as opposed to a fundamentalist, knows how to shift hermeneutical gears when listening to a teacher teach, and when listening to a language (or other) lawyer tell you the black letter of the law.

    Tony, thanks for cleaning the article up. I wouldn't object to a new section about controversy because it's a fact that a campaign did start, originating in the drive to standardize a language that should be retired and not standardised, and also in the desire of a competing author to destroy Herb's sales, of harassment and a controversy section can identify this fact, containing pointers to the jejune objections to Herb's books. It might also mention the abuse I was subjected to when I annotated the discussion page yesterday, as if it's the worst crime in the world to interrupt bullies when they are vandalizing, not only a wikipedia article, but also the good name of a living person. The content that was created yesterday, in calling me a net.kook for asking wikipedia merely to live up to its own standards, certainly reveals a lot about the envy and hatred that, I believe, caused the article to be created...as merely an ability to people to exhibit globally erroneous notions about C and mentoring, along with ill-will, bad manners, childishness, envy and quite possibly greed.

    Edward G. Nilges203.218.133.218 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply] 


     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.133.218 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kearnan Myall

    There appears to be a longstanding attempt to turn the stub on this Rugby player into what I can only describe as a gossip column about the player. He does play with a team in the Premiership league this year, so it probably wouldn't be suitable to remove the article. I keep stubbing it down but the nonsense keeps coming back. This obviously isn't the hugest BLP-related problem on the wiki, but advice and comments might help. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added it to my watchlist, but I suspect you'd have a case for semi-protection. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think I'll take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and see what happens. --Tony Sidaway 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's now resolved. It's semi-protected. --Tony Sidaway 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Janov and others

    A question was raised above at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Primal_Therapy regarding the appropriateness of this external link under BLP policy. This subpage includes unverifiable contentious claims regarding living persons. I have opined above in response to the question that I feel its inclusion is inappropriate, as BLP requires that ELs be fully compliant with WP:EL, which states that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links". The link is offered as a source or an EL in each of the above articles. I would appreciate feedback from others as to whether it presents a significant enough issue as regards BLP to warrant immediate removal, particularly as one of those articles is protected against edit warring. Pretty please and thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Still hoping for feedback on this. I'm considering asking at the help desk. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    on the narrow question of including the subpage, or maybe even the main debunkingprimaltherapy.com page, I'll say no it shouldn't be included because it is not a well-known reliable source. However it does seem to have a wealth of reliable source linked to.
    There is a question on a talk page about whether Discover Magazine is a reliable source. While it certainly is not a scientific journal, for purposes here it should be considered a reliable source. Being a scientific journal is not a requirement for being a reliable source - even for scientific topics.
    My main comment is that this is probably best handled under WP:fringe. There is a question of whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. It looks like some editors are SPEs. I've listed Primal Therapy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, but not sure that this is the best place. The main issue should be in deciding whether Primal therapy is psuedoscience. From there, the rest should take care of itself. Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for your response and for listing the Primal therapy article in a good place for further review. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    L'Arche

    Xcstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User:Xcstar has devoted nearly his entire edit history to adding false, misleading and defamatory information about Dane Rauschenberg. A reference to Rauschenberg's fundraising efforts, with appropriate reliable sourcing, was added to the L'Arche article, replacing an unsourced edit added by User:Xcstar (see here for details) that described the fundraising under the "Controversies" section of the article and was described in the edit summary as "added reference to Fiddy2, an unfortunate episode in the L'Arche fundraising history." In subsequent edits, User:Xcstar has added the accusation that "Critics have cited to a lack of supervision and accountability for such fund raising efforts", using a blog entry as a source (see here). As User:Xcstar persists in making false and defamatory accusations in violation of WP:BLP, and as the only "source" used when finally added was from an anonymous blog entry, it would seem that there is no justification to retain this information. What can be done to prevent further abuse of policy? Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The above item was posted here in response to a complaint posted at [[50]]. It is obvious that he is trying to divert attention to his repeated violation of the three revert rule. Several users have repeatedly noted that the subject of the article Dane Rauschenberg is not noteworthy, and the article was one big WP:COI violation. Eventually, the subject's various sockpupets were banned, but User:Alansohn has taken up the cause in an effort to see how far he can spin Mr. Rauschenberg into a person worthy of note. The best outcome would be a deletion of the Dane Rauschenberg article, but if it must remain, all facts should be presented in a fair and balanced manner. For example, Mr. Rauschenberg added to the article that he shared the honor as the Washington Running Club's "Male Runner of the Year." Yet, the WRC is a 56-member running club in a city with two other running clubs of over 1,000 members, each of whom honored others that year. I do not know the relationship between User:Alansohn and Dane Rauschenberg, but the energy he expends in puffing up Mr. Rauschenberg's so-called achievements shows a serious lack of editorial judgment, and does not excuse his abusive editing and 3RR violations. User:Xcstar(talk) 18:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FatChris1

    FatChris1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This users has been adding unsourced and difamatory material to several articles. It has been warned by me and another admin but it seems they ignore the warnings. I have come to the last warning template and the next step was to report him.
    I've contact with two administrators about this issue but because I suspect they could be in a sockpuppetry case. This is because another account with a very similar name was blocked for a week because of adding the exactly same unsourced material to articles. After the block expired, a new accout (which is the one I'm reporting now) started adding the already mentioned content.
    I reported the other account ending in a 7 days block. It can be seen here.
    I suggest an idef block and reconsider if the user is a sucker sockpuppeteer. Tasc0 It's a zero! 22:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can anyone response to this? Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you'd have a pretty good case at WP:SSP. Do you need any help filing such a report? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, yes. I haven't report any SSP case before. But I don't know if we should let this report go and go straight to SSP or wait if the user gets blocked for repetly adding unsourced material to BLP articles.
    Can I get any help with this user? For Pete's sake. Tasc0 It's a zero! 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is still adding unsourced material. Why does nobody gives a damn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasc0 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I missed your response to my offer; I should have been monitoring more carefully. Frankly, I don't think he's going to get blocked for adding unsourced material (unless it's deemed to be revert-warring), so if he's a sock WP:SSP is the best best. Could you provide some diffs of the identical edits made by the first user? I promise to monitor this more carefully this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here it is. From the first account: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4. That's just a fews, but I'm guessing it's good. The list goes on. Just check the user contribs.
    The second account Special:Contributions/FatChris1: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5,diff 6. Again, the list goes on. Tasc0 It's a zero! 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suspected sock-puppet case here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Tasc0 It's a zero! 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eriko Tamura

    I am more concerned about the future of the article. A couple of users recently removed the birth date and birth place and that is perfectly backed up with reliable sources. I reverted it, and a couple of hours later, that has been removed. Also, some parts of it need to be well-cited. I need some help with this. A user most recently added accomplishments in Japan and removed the birth date. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I hope that you are not referring to the self-published article that cites Wikipedia as one of those reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This just strikes me as bizarre. First the discussion about Kou Shibasaki and now this. Apparently Tamura also sued IMDB for including her real name and birthdate. http://www.onpointnews.com/070320.asp That suit (assuming the referenced URL, which is more of an opinion site, is accurate) was dropped by Tamura, and the IMDB data remains. Although I'm not a first amendment attorney (I am an attorney, but my area of expertise is IP law, not first amendment law, although we all get a pretty good immersion in the subject in law school), I suspect it was dropped because it didn't have much of a chance of winning, for the reasons pretty well put forth in that article. There are good encyclopedic reason to include birth date, or at least birth year; as well as a real name. It may be that Japan has a more restrictive policy, and if that's true, then that's a good argument for keeping the info out of the Japanese wikipedia. But Wikipedia in general should not look to the lowest common denominator and self-censor. UncleG's comment is a separate issue; if the information is incorrect or unreliable, it should not be used as a source, of course. -- TJRC (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some additional info: it looks like Tamura herself provided her birth name in the complaint in her lawsuit, and did so without attempting to file under seal. A copy of the complaint is at http://www.onpointnews.com/docs/IMDB.pdf ("Plaintiff is a well-known professional actress whose given name is Eriko Sakamoto, but who publicly uses only the name Eriko Tamura.") That action alone puts the name very clearly into the public record in the U.S.; not at all private Anyone can go down to the Clark County courthouse and get a photocopy of this filing and see the name; and this is something newspaper reporters, for example, do routinely. That wouldn't be the case if she had either filed under seal, or simply omitted her given name in the filing. -- TJRC (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the points where we will be having a lot of misunderstanding. I am not a lawyer, but with all the time I spent here, Commons and the Japanese Wikipedia I noticed privacy laws in Japan are very strict. The Japanese Wikipedia respect it all (as you have seen it in the Kou Shibasaki discussion, the fact that no article there has a free picture of a Japanese artist, etc) even though they may not need to do so (if the ja.wikipedia.org server are outside Japan, I mean). I think, even if that were the case, they would not put it to allow article reprinting (which would be impossible had they not respected those laws) and out of respect. I think every time an issue happens with Japanese articles, we should point the users to our disclaimer, although I also like the compromise of finding more than just one reference for this kind of data (which should make it clear the data is public). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think multiple sources are required if one source is sufficiently reliable. In this case, we have two pieces of data, the birth date and the given name. We can fairly rely upon Tamura's own court filing as a reliable source for the name. There's no need to find a second source to show that it's reliable. As to the birth date, the only source I'm aware of from this discussion (I've never researched Tamura herself; I didn't even recognize the name as being the "Heroes" actress until I looked at her article) is her IMDB entry; but Tamura's court filing says it's accurate (saying IMDB is "showing Plaintiff's birth date"). That's sufficient to establish the accuracy of the entry.
    And anyway, accuracy isn't the issue of the complaint. If anything, it's the exact opposite. Her complaint isn't that the information is wrong; her complaint is that the information is accurate. TJRC (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Leykis

    Yeah, I think your actions were not only permissable, but mandatory. I just headed over to his talk page to add a note, but what you said summed up exactly what I would have. Hopefully that will put an end to this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My goodness, that article is a BLP nightmare. It almost needs to be stubbed and started from scratch - none of it is cited. --B (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Deleted and recreated as stub, too many BLP violations to mention.--Docg 10:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Éric Zemmour

    • I don't know who is this guy (is he notable ?) but the description which is provided is not encyclopedic. Hektor (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted the worst of it. A google search seems to indicate that the subject actually exists, so I'll see if I can source the NPOV portion of the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Prodded as nn.--Docg 09:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've de-prodded and commenced the process of translating the French Wikipedia article on him. I hope to finish tomorrow. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've finished the translation. The article still needs a lot of cleanup (and I'd be grateful to anybody who took the initiative on that), but I think notability is clearly established. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Hydrick

    • James Hydrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a particularly tendentious editor who insists on including "where is he now" as a section with the inclusion of sex offender information and an external link to a sex offender database for this subject. The subject was a famous con artist who was shown to be a fraud by the Amazing Randi some 30 or so years ago on TV. Since then he has not been notable, yet the editor insists on labelling him as a sex offender, giving what I believe to be undue weight to that aspect of the subject's life. This would seem to fly in the face of the BLP policy and does nothing to better the article in my opinion. I believe the article needs oversight due to the repeated addition of this material by the other editor. // 24.218.222.86 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have been sensibly sorted on the talk page.--Docg 09:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ken Macdonald

    Could I have some input as to whether it is appropriate to mention a criminal conviction spent under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The conviction was widely reported in the UK press at the time of his appointment as Director of Public Prosecutions, and was a matter of some controversy and comment that it rendered him unsuitable for the job of chief prosecutor in England and Wales. The existence of the conviction was also confirmed by the Attorney General. It seems to me that no further harm can be done by mentioning the matter in the Wikipedia article, and indeed it is impossible to otherwise accurately describe the reaction to his appointment without mentioning it. I will grant that the form of its mention in the article didn't make the relevance clear, I had started a rewrite after stumbling across the article when reverting vandalism, but the effort had rather stalled as I got diverted into other issues. David Underdown (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Providing that the conviction is 1) verifiable 2) pertinent to the public record on the individual (by that I mean it is commented on in public sources/media 3) not given undue weight 4) described neutrally, then the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is quite irrelevant to us.--Docg 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In this instance, I'd say the offence is quite relevant and should be included. Although, I'd be happier seeing it as a small part of a larger article, rather than one of the four sentence we have on him.--Docg 12:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, the mention in the article was cited to a Guardian interview/profile of him (same ref as used for pupillage with Helena Kennedy). The weight issue was what I was heading towards with my penultimate sentence above. Perhaps I should move the rewrite back up my todo list. David Underdown (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carla Martin

    Carla Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article was deleted a few months ago, but immediately reappeared in a very poor state. A user adding unsourced and poorly sourced material to the article today brought my attention back to it. I have tried to clean it up, but I think it needs other eyes on it to insure that policy is adhered to. -- Donald Albury 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mordechai Gafni

    Mordechai Gafni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mordechai_Gafni - Fructify (talk · contribs) has been editing this article repeatedly to replace the article with a hagiography about how great Rabbi Gafni is. It is very possible that Fructify and Mordechai Gafni are one and the same (so this may also be a conflict of interest). Due to the nature of the edit warring and the failure of Fructify to respond, I have blocked the account for 24 hours (rather than indef, which I would have done if I didn't believe Gafni and Fructify were the same person), explained why, and tried to edit down the article a little to reduce the undue weight on Gafni's rape allegations, but some more seasoned BLP eyes would be appreciated. Neıl ☎ 16:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strongly suggest you flag this up at Wikiproject:Judaism - they are good at taking such articles under their wing.--Docg 17:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Lupica

    • Mike Lupica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 208.120.226.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and I are disagreeing about what sort of "controversial" content is allowed in Mike Lupica's article. We are in agreement about the removal of a good chunk of the content but the remainder revolves around two people (fellow sportswriters I believe) who apparently have axes to grind with Mr. Lupica. This according to a blog site which is being used as a reference... One person blames Lupica (among others) for his firing from ESPN. The second generally doesn't like him. I don't see where either of these warrant a mention in Lupica's page. The guy who was fired has his own page so he can have a mention there but taking up half of Lupica's article with the bellyaching - including full paragraph-long quotes from the blog reference - is way out of line per WP:NPOV. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The content under discussion concerns a pair of interviews conducted for a blog with two established sportswriters, employed by ESPN and the New York Post, respectively. The content is not the thoughts of a random blogger; the blog is being used as a reference only because it is the source where the interviews appeared. (There's also a supplemental reference from a Kansas City newspaper.) Other sources that refer to the interviews are available. The content obviously deals with internecine criticism between colleagues, but the quotes themselves are not under dispute, being both verified and reliably sourced (see WP:NPOV). There are many Wikipages which include similar content; as the NPOV page cites, "The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV"." Because the reporter in question was fired by ESPN for giving the interview, the incident should be relevant to the article.208.120.226.72 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the content (in greatly reduced form) is acceptable. Blog aren't usually Reliable Sources, but these are by persons notable in their fields. So how about a short summary/short quote from each, along with any reply Lupica may have made to them/criticism of them? Compromise? IronDuke 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be more likely to agree if a neutral third-party source could be found to report on the tiffs. For all I know, this blog only publishes anti-Lupica content. The quotes can only be considered primary sources at best. We're supposed to be using secondary sources. Just because Jason Whitlock says he was fired because of Lupica does not make it so. Even if ESPN confirmed Lupica's involvement, a line might make sense but otherwise, we're just taking Whitlock's word for it. If we allowed things like this, then every time Howard Stern went on a short rant about a subject, we'd have to allow a line in that subject's article about Stern's rant. But Stern rants about almost everyone at one point or another! —Wknight94 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    wknight, keep in mind that we're not saying Whitlock is right, merely that Whitlock believes X about Lupica. In no way do we take a position on it, we simply convey what was said. And it's no more a primary source than any other interview would be, and interview quotes are used fairly liberally here, no? As for Stern, we only report his rants when it's notable that he ranted, cf, this IronDuke 01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability of an interview is an excellent point. How notable could this interview be if no neutral third-party sources can be found for it? All I ask is one decent source that anyone cared about this interview. Even better would be where Lupica commented on the interview. If he didn't care enough to mention it, why should we? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? You are approximately 100% right. Yes, of course, if this blog is the only place its mentioned, then it's officially non-notable. 208.120.226.72, if you want any part of this in, you are going to have to have better sources to add to this. IronDuke 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Does Sports Illustrated (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/richard_deitsch/11/09/media.circus/index.html) or AOL Sports (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/category/nfl/2006/09/29/real-talk-debuts-and-jason-whitlock-promises-never-to-back-down/) or the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292006/sports/turner_calls_cal_sports_andrew_marchand.htm) or or the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060927.TRUTH27/TPStory/TPSports/) or USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2006-09-26-hiestand-tv_x.htm) qualify? The reason the blog was being used as the reference is because it's the ORIGINAL source of the interview.208.120.226.72 (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact, yes, those are much more palpable. Given this many independent secondary sources mentioning Lupica by name, I can agree with a brief mention on Lupica's page. I still disagree with including any part of the blog quote in Lupica's page - a link to the blog should suffice. Whitlock being fired by ESPN should not cause half of Lupica's article being taken up by a Whitlock quote. It just doesn't make sense. Lupica's article is supposed to be about Lupica and his life, and Whitlock's firing is simply not that big a part of Lupica's life. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True enough, as far as it goes. But beyond the circumstances of Whitlock's firing and its non-impact on Lupica, the interview serves as a source for specific, detailed criticisms of Lupica's work and professional status. Lupica's work and professional status are most certainly a big part of Lupica's life. For the purposes of the Wikipage, the content of the interview is more relevant than the result (the firing). I've since found two context-expanding quotes from ESPN personnel, commenting on Whitlock's quotes (one questioning the wisdom of giving the interview, the other disputing Whitlock's characterization), and a second Whitlock interview with a newspaper, expanding on his original remarks. I disagree that a "brief mention" is sufficient to convey the particulars of the criticism. A better and more encyclopedic response would be to build up the remainder of the Lupica article if it's of insufficent breadth, rather than to penalize the Whitlock kerfuffle for being too elaborate.208.120.226.72 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is I don't hear any of the third-party sources criticizing Lupica. I only hear Whitlock criticizing him. That's not a neutral criticism of Lupica. Lupica didn't fire Whitlock, ESPN did. The whole episode reflects far more on Whitlock and ESPN than it does on Lupica. So why cloud Lupica's whole article with this one incident? This is an especially problematic issue in the sportswriter world where people can basically say anything they want and are rewarded for saying controversial things. I'm sure Whitlock has said controversial and negative things about hundreds or thousands of people. Do we have to give an entire quote and/or half an article to each such instance? And in the targets' articles no less?! You could take up 1,000 pages in the Barry Bonds article just from the quotes of famous people who hate him. How ridiculous would that be? Since there was a firing that took place and third-party sources reported on Whitlock blaming Lupica and the other guy, I can see a short mention in both Lupica's and the other guy's article, and a longer mention in Whitlock's, but that's about it. If you think Lupica's article is of insufficient breadth, then broaden it - but in a neutral way, not starting with one negative event that only one person thinks involved Lupica. It makes Lupica look bad and, for all we know, the whole thing was Whitlock's responsibility. Since he was the one fired and not Lupica, it would seem to the untrained eye (like mine) that that's the case. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lon Horiuchi

    • Lon Horiuchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 67.188.118.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps adding [[Category:American Terrorists]] to this article about an FBI sniper, in violation of Biographies of living persons guidelines. Yaf (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do we even have a separate article on Horiuchi? He is only notable for his role in the Ruby Ridge incident, and his "biography" consists of a description of his participation in that incident. It should be merged and/or redirected. As for his alleged role in Waco, it may rate a brief mention in the Waco Siege article, but that's it. The Lon Horiuchi article is not a "biography" in any real sense. *** Crotalus *** 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, the talk page should be deleted since the comments there clearly violate WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 00:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have deleted potentially-libelous comments on talk page. Yaf (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater, an otherwise legitimate question addressing a fact missing from the article in the questioner's mind, was erased - as was the "not insanely libellous" response about FBI practice. Whether it's true or not, neither of those editors were broaching anything near libel or a BLP violation. The only comment that 'should' have been removed was "Because the MAN stepped in and got their boy off. That's how the US rolls.", though even that I'd argue is about the FBI and not about Horiuchi, so not a BLP issue either. But even still, at most one of the three editors should have had their edits erased - you erased all three. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kook Jin Moon

    He is the son of Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon and notable as the founder of Kahr Arms, a New York company that makes handguns used mainly by police. The main point of the article seems to not be about him but about: "How terrible it is that the son of a religious leader makes guns." Steve Dufour (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David Suzuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A person or persons has been campaigning to include a lot of negative information about this environmental activist; the gist of it is that he is opposed to carbon emissions, yet travels the country spreading his message, thus emitting carbon. This is in itself worth including in a neutral and proportionate way, but he/she/they seems to prefer a rather disproportionate focus on the information, and appears to be citing his/her/their sources quite tendentiously and out-of-context. <eleland/talkedits> 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Trita Parsi

    We have an OTRS complaint about this page (Ticket #2008010410012838). The subject is a politician, and it appears that those who feel his politics & motivations are less than honorable wish his wiki-bio to express that POV. I've reverted a few times and pointed to WP:BLP on the talk page, however these folks feel they aren't violating anything in WP:BLP. The page is currently full-protected because they keep readding content removed in this diff. I'm not adverse to unprotecting or semi-protecting if someone wants to work on a balanced version of the bio. I've tried to leave at least a mention of the controversy (which does appear notable) in the article, however most sources are blogs & biased political opinion sites. --Versageek 18:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This related article should also be examined/watched for BLP issues. --Versageek 17:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arnold Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) stubbified

    This is notification that I have blanked the article Arnold Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for constant violations of our policy on biographies of living individuals, in particular, BLP concerns; in short, 99% of the page is uncited. I request that all editors do not revert, but work to include verifiable material. Will (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Valentine Rodriguez

    He's not a known soccer player, and I'm not sure if he even exists. Superman3892 (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody with some knowledge of Spanish navigate the website of his alleged team to see if he's mentioned on there? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I checked the official site of the team and he's not mentioned there, anyway, I'm a journalist and soccer commentator here in Mexico, and I can tell you this dude is not a professional soccer player. Maybe he's a "wise" guy trying to be funny.Superman3892 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was created by an editor with no edits other than to that article, hasn't been substantially edited by anybody else, and turns up no google hits. Combined with your say-so (and the fact that on the article of his supposed team, a different player is listed as having his number 18), I'm prepared to believe you. I've proposed it for deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clayton Counts

    This appears to be a stage name of an obscure musician - rather than an actual person. Bigraphical (birth and newly added death) information is unverified. It reads like a vanity page Absenter (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have confirmed through birth records that James Clayton Counts was/is a real person, and that he was born on August 19, 1973, in Midland, Texas, just as his article states. Is there any easy way to verify this for inclusion? His article has already been through AfD debate, and the result was keep. It has been maintained by many Wikipedia editors, and is not a vanity page. Multiple, independent, reliable sources mention the artist by name. Rolling Stone, USA Today, and Entertainment Weekly have mentioned him. Hardly an "obscure musician."TrevorPearce (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies for the use of obscure. The point of contention is the recently update of death rumors, which have not been verified with the exception of a post to the Clayton Counts website. It is my understanding that a user's website should not be used as the sole reliable reference for BLP. I would like to see mention of this rumor removed until it has been validated one way or another thru more reliable sources. Absenter (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My only contention is that a rumor of one's death from their own website should be acceptable, as long as it's clearly portrayed as a rumor. If we were stating it as fact, reliable sources would certainly be necessary. The mention seems relevant to the article and its subject. Many rumors are reported on in Wikipedia, and many blogs are referred to. However, they should never be used to prove or disprove biographical content. In this case, the reference is to a claim made on the artist's website, and it is characterized as a rumor.TrevorPearce (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir Edmund Hillary

    Sir Edmund Hillary, more affectionately known as Sir Ed has passed away this morning at 9 AM at Auckland City Hospital, his wikipedia page has been changed to announce his death in New Zealand Time but people have been changing the dates and times from what its supposed to be (11th January 2008 9:00AM) to Hawaii time or even other time zones, ppl have been warned in the article discussion not to do so but i think it happened a couple of times. In respect to this great man i wish for his article to be semi protected or protected against changes made to any details of his death. Thank you.

    203.109.215.123 (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably will settle down when January 11th arrives for more of the timezone unaware. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After Everest "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on further visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." would be more correct to say: "Hillary climbed ten other peaks in the Himalayas on [later or subsequent] visits in 1956, 1960–61 and 1963–65. He also reached the South Pole..." He was an adventurer and as such understood the distinction between distance (as in further) and time (as in later)! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was mistaken about further.

    These two words are commonly used interchangeably, but there is a difference between them.

    "Farther" refers to physical or geographic distance.

    Example: The apartment I want is farther from my office.

    "Further" is more abstract. It refers to time or degree or quantity. It's another way of saying "additional."

    Examples:

    I have to look further into the question of moving farther from my office.

    There was no further discussion.

    ladyjane | Sep-28-05 10:24AM

    Use farther when you're talking about physical distances.

    Farther down the road.

    They're further along in their plans than I expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdowd108 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyor Cohen

    Franklin Coverup Incident

    • Franklin Coverup Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Notable hoax/conspiracy theory that refers to allegations of a child prostitution ring serving high level U.S. politicians, which were later determined by a grand jury to have been a hoax. Until January 10th the title was “Franklin Coverup Hoax”. The title was changed to “Franklin Coverup Incident” without discussion, and material added suggesting that it was not a hoax. The material added is sourced to a self-published book “The Franklin Cover-up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska” which fails WP:V, and an unpublished documentary. As the article names living individuals, the title needs to be restored unless or until a reliable source can be found that’s states to the contrary. The last version by MBC should likely be restored, and maybe protected.// Brimba (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to do some CE but its a real train wreck. Good luck, --Tom 20:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Mark Bellinghaus/Mark Bellinghaus (collector)

    What's the status of pages like this? --NE2 00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a talk sub page and relevant to the discussion and AfD debate, as I've pointed out already. There's nothing in it that's a violation of BLP, so it doesn't belong on this notice board. Tyrenius (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted now as unnecessary duplicate of material on talk page. Tyrenius (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rey Flores

    This article has tags galore and needs tons of work, besides being repeatedly hit by a User who's on his fourth vandalism warning. Is he really a conservative or is he pulling people's legs (the article used to say pulling their collective third leg, which I changed just now). Corvus cornixtalk 00:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why he's notable, tempt to speedy it Secret account 00:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I was tempted myself. Corvus cornixtalk 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Derrick Francis

    My name is Derrick Francis and I approve the biography listed as "Derrick Tha Franchise aka Young Fame" and Derrick Francis. The biography was written by my company Ear 2 Tha Street Entertainment and copied to Wikipedia. I may be contacted for verification at ContactYoungFame@Gmail.com. "72.218.99.173 (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

    Perrie Simpson

    I came about this new article (Perrie Simpson, that is), and am not too sure wether it's okay. Especially the whole crime description. Could one of you BLP guys/girls look over it? Thanks. -- Pepve (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, WP:BLP doesn't apply, since the subject's been deceased for quite some time. I am concerned that it might not meet WP:N, but I'm not an expert on how that policy generally applies to criminals, so I won't AfD it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if Stephanie Euro is still alive, it could be a BLP issue (given the detailed account of her role in the crime). I'll look into it further. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this murderer is notable for an article, try to AFD. Secret account 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clinton Kelly (TV personality)

    There is some debate over Kelly's sexual orientation on this article and it's talk page. There is no verifiable source that supplies information on this subject. When I requested a citation to the fact that he's "openly gay", the supposed citation/reference is his own website, wherein he specifically states he will not answer whether he is gay. Since I defend Wikipedia to everyone as an reliable resource, I hoped someone higher up with more time and knowledge than me will put an end to this. Thanks --sdream93 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's a blatant violation of WP:BLP. The material in question must be removed immediately and without discussion, until and unless a reliable source can be cited that specifically justifies the claim. *** Crotalus *** 03:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read the website, where he does say it's none of anyone's business, but then he (in the tongue-in-cheek interview of himself) asks, "Yes?" and answers "Duh", so he does say he's gay on his own website. See [53]. Aleta (Sing) 04:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Using Wikiquote for a vendetta

    Are there no standards whatsoever on Wikiquote? A page on my real life identity as Chip Berlet was created there for the sole purpose of inserting a nasty quote out of contect into a Wikipedia entry where the quote had already been deleted by admins for violating rules on Biographies of Living Persons. What is even more outlandish, is that my request for deletion on Wikiquote was refused. Is there no one here willing to deal with the fact that Wikiquote is being used to violate Wikipedia BLP guidelines on defamation?--Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the quote there while it is being discussed at the Village pump. Cbrown1023 talk 03:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why vendetta? I read about some Chip Berlet first time at English Wikipedia when I saw how he want to censor criticism of him. Then I understand that he also hate Lyndon LaRouche (I read about him also first time here) and he had many disputes in articles about him. I have no reason for vendetta and it is only personal attack when he writes it. --Dezidor (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others#Cberlet cautioned regarding autobiography and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others#Over-involvement by Cberlet in Chip Berlet --Dezidor (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop trolling. Wikiquote has a NPOV policy. Your first reversion cannot be seen as following that. Three admins have also removed it. Get the point. Will (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I do not think that Wikiquote has a NPOV policy : generally speaking if a quote is authentic then it can stay within certain limits of lenght and relevance of course. Different forums, different rules. Andries (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Lamborn Wilson and accusations of pederasty

    I'd like to get some outside/expert input on whether or not accusations of pederasty should be included in the Peter Lamborn Wilson article; the disputed link is here. If someone could review the arguments on the talkpage with reference to WP:BLP it would be greatly appreciated. Skomorokh incite 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Philip

    Excessive criticisms per WP:WEIGHT. I removed a couple that I thought were over the top but they're repeatedly being re-added. In order to avoid an edit war, I'm bringing it here for review. Corvus cornixtalk 20:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Desi Bouterse

    Can somebody please provide references? See Talk:Dési_Bouterse. Andries (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:David_Howe_(claimant_to_King_of_Mann)

    My name is David Howe. A biography page about me is currently under consideration for review by the Arbitration Committee at my request. It looks as if this will move forward. In the mean time the biography page has been fully protected however the talk page has not. I originally did not have a problem with this. Unfortunately libelous material and claims about me being a sock puppet are being made. Certain editors are added text boxes to the top of the page claiming I have been editing Wikipedia under various user names. This is all part of an ongoing campaign meant to embarrass and discredit me. I would appreciate it if we could get full protection on this page as well. Thank you.--Kingofmann (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=184143191"